From 2006 – 2008, families in a six-site nationwide study participated in a program to enhance parenting skills. Participating parents were monitored for “depression, health- and healthcare-related practices, and surrounding family conditions at baseline and 6-month intervals for up to 36 months.” Data from this study, available in a publicly-funded AHRQ/NIH database, was recently analyzed, and while participants began with reduced health literacy skills, “after 1 year of enhanced home visitation, vulnerable parents were better able to manage personal and family health and healthcare, especially if depressed.” While the sample size (2,572 parent/child dyads) was modest, the findings demonstrate one way we can improve parental health literacy levels even among depressed parents.

In addition to demonstrating the benefits of home visitation in improving health literacy, this study provides support for those that argue for making publicly-funded research data available to all. While no less important back then, health literacy was not the burning topic in 2006-2008 as it is today. Principal investigators had no idea that their work could or would be used in this way. If this data was locked behind a publisher’s pay-wall, this study might never have happened. Because it was publicly available, it could be re-used to test new ideas and ways to help people today.

Researchers must have open access to as many data sources as possible in order to find new ways to help those in need. Access must take precedence over ownership and control when the health outcomes of vulnerable populations (in this case, children) is at stake.

What data sources should be made accessible that are not available right now? Or, what publicly available data/studies/etc. would you like to see analyzed in new and creative ways? Tell us about it!

Reference:

1.    Smith SA, Moore EJ. Health Literacy and Depression in the Context of Home Visitation. Maternal and child health journal. Nov 26 2011.

…is being outpaced by most other developed countries when it comes to improvements in health outcomes, according to a new analysis by a researcher at the University Of Washington School Of Public Health. The researcher, Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in global health, says the decline comes despite increased U.S. spending on health care services.

In a published study titled “The Hurrider I Go the Behinder I Get: The Deteriorating International Ranking of U.S. Health Status,” Bezruchka looked at statistics on Infant and child mortality, maternal mortality, life expectancy at birth and at age 50, and adult mortality as mortality measures that reflect health over the course of one’s life, comparing them across developed countries. This study offers a succinct summary of its findings as follows:

1. Around 1950, the United States had among the best health outcomes measured by mortality indicators, but 60 years later, it ranked behind the other rich countries and a number of poorer ones.
2. The differences in mortality outcomes between the United States and the healthiest nations today represent substantial inequalities in health.
3. Reasons for this relative decline are likely due to structural changes related to societal determinants of population health stemming from high economic inequality and lack of attention to early life issues.
4. Public awareness of deteriorating health rankings in the United States is limited, so the next steps to improving health require major communication strategies.

Why do you think we have fallen so far behind in health outcomes compared to the rest of the developed world? What can or should we do to change it? Tell us!