Although the PHI segment is in many ways similar to other segments of the workforce, several notable distinctions stand out in the Table. More than a third (36.3%) of PHI workers are 40 years or younger, which is higher than the proportions reported in the IT (16.4%), other PHS (29.6%), and CL (23.6%) segments for this age range. IT workers were more likely to be 40 to 60 years old (70.8%), which is more than 10% higher than any other group. However, a quarter of the PHI workforce reports working in public health for more than 21 years, which is twice that of the IT segment (12.9%) and almost equal to those in the PHS and CL segments. Whereas IT workers tend to be male (59.1%) and similar in gender distribution with CL workers (78.1% male), PHI workers tend to be female (61.3%) and similar to PHS workers (67.6% female). With respect to race, IT workers are more likely to be Asian (13.1%) than PHI workers (5.7% Asian); overall, PHI racial demographics are again similar to other PHS workers as opposed to IT or CL workers. With respect to income, PHI workers tend to earn less, with more than half of PHI respondents (54.3%) reporting an annual salary up to $55 000. The PHI segment also exhibits a unique mix of educational degrees held by workers. Like the IT segment, nearly a third (28.8%) of PHI workers do not have a bachelor's degree; yet, like other PHS roles, PHI employees predominantly (38.2%) hold a master's degree. Finally, unlike the other segments, PHI workers appear to be more evenly distributed among SHAs that serve small (34.1%), medium (30.5%), and large (35.4%) populations, whereas the other groups, especially IT workers, appear to be concentrated in large jurisdictions (IT = 63.6%; PHS = 45.7%; CL = 45.0%).
Job satisfaction, training needs, and workplace environment
In Figure 1, we summarize weighted job satisfaction, training needs, and workplace environment responses. When asked whether they were satisfied with their job, PHI workers tended to respond either somewhat (34.8%) or very (52.4%) satisfied. This is contrasted with lower proportions in the other 3 segments (P = .05). Similarly, PHI respondents were generally satisfied with their pay, with nearly two-thirds (64.9%) indicating they were either somewhat or very satisfied, as opposed to the IT (49%), PHS (51.1%), and CL (44.5%) segments (P < .001). Respondents in the PHI segment reported similarly favorable feelings toward their organization (P = .72) and job security (P = .10).
Respondents were further asked about their work environment. With respect to whether respondents felt the work they do is important, PHI workers were more likely to agree or strongly agree than IT, CL, or other PHS (P < .001) workers. PHI workers also responded more favorably regarding the relative contribution of their work to the agency's mission (P < .001) as well as the availability of opportunities to apply their expertise (P < .001). Among all 4 groups, respondents were more neutral when asked about job training. When asked whether employees' training needs are assessed, PHI responses were marginally higher than CL workers but more than 10% higher than IT and other PHS workers (P < .001). PHI respondents answered more favorably (>10% when compared with CL and other PHS respondents; >20% when compared with IT respondents; P < .001) when asked whether they received sufficient technical training. Yet, for all 4 groups, at least 20% of respondents disagreed that employees' training needs were assessed and they received sufficient technical training.
Informatics needs and trends
In Figure 2, we summarize selected workforce training priorities identified by the PHI, IT, PHS, and CL segments. The survey asked respondents to assess both the importance of and their current skill level in a number of core public health competencies. We selected the subset of core public health competencies that overlap the greatest with previously defined PHI competencies.2 , 23 , 24
Of the selected knowledge areas, “gathering reliable information” and “applying quality improvement concepts in my work” are perceived similarly (medians range between 3.1 and 3.4, which are “somewhat important” values) across the 4 segments with respect to importance in day-to-day work. Furthermore, there are similar ratings with respect to current skill level in these areas across the 4 segments (medians range from 2.4 to 2.8, representing responses between beginner and proficient). There is divergence in the 3 questions pertaining to interpreting data and evidence-based practice. Like the PHS and CL segments, PHI workers rate data interpretation, finding evidence, and applying evidence as somewhat important (medians range from 2.6 to 3.3). Conversely, the IT segment rated these competencies as somewhat unimportant (medians range from 1.6 to 2.4) to their day-to-day work. With respect to their current skill level in these 3 areas, median response in each of the 4 segments similarly was between beginner (2.0) and proficient (4.0), with several medians leaning toward the beginner level.
The survey further asked respondents a series of questions about several trends in public health. Respondents were asked about how much they had heard about the trends as well as the importance of the trends to the field, their impact on the respondents' daily work, and how much emphasis should be given to them in the future. The trends included concepts such as Public Health Services and Systems Research,25 Health in All Policies, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act.26 In Figure 3, we summarize respondents' answers to the questions about leveraging electronic health information—a core concept in PHI.
While PHI, IT, and PHS workers reported hearing about the trend “a little,” CL responses trended toward “not much.” All 4 groups generally felt that electronic health information would impact their day-to-day work. Yet, only PHI and IT workers feel that electronic health information is somewhat important, with PHS and CL responses trending toward “somewhat unimportant.” All groups agreed that in the future, “more emphasis” should be placed on leveraging electronic health information for public health functions.
Using the PH WINS data set, we analyzed the characteristics, perceptions, and information needs of PHI workers in SHA central offices in relation to other workforce segments. The data from PH WINS establish a large, representative baseline for an increasingly important segment of the broader public health workforce—public health informatics. Respondents' answers help characterize existing, self-identified PHI workers while distinguishing them from other segments of the public health workforce. Furthermore, because PHI is increasingly recognized as a core competency for all public health workers and not just specialists, responses to several questions on the PH WINS help benchmark where the field is with respect to supporting broader PHI training and needs among the public health workforce.
A key finding is that PHI is a very small segment of the public health workforce. Just 1.4% of respondents identified themselves as a PHI specialist, whereas 4.1% of respondents identified themselves as IT specialists. Combined, this is just 5.5% of the overall public health workforce. At first glance, the small number may seem inadequate, given the growth in information system adoption and use within public health. However, these numbers are on par with similar measurements of the IT workforce within the health care sector from several years ago when IT systems were just beginning to proliferate medicine. Estimates from the United Kingdom and Australia suggest there are roughly 1 in 50 health care workers who specialize in IT; in US hospitals, it was estimated that 1 in 60 workers specialized in IT.15 Over time, we expect that the PHI workforce will expand; yet, we do not anticipate that it would grow much beyond 1 in 40 PH workers since it is a highly specialized role.
The survey further characterizes PHI workers as younger, earning less, and more diffuse among health departments of various sizes. These findings are not surprising, given that the PHI specialization is a recent addition to the field, so health departments may have just 1 or 2 PHI specialists rather than an entire division, such as the Minnesota Department of Health has an Office of Health Information Technology.27 Public health agencies use and continue to adopt a wide range of sophisticated information systems, as the practice of public health, like medicine, has shifted away from paper-based toward electronic processes for conducting routine business functions, such as surveillance, food inspections, and environmental monitoring. PHI specialists increasingly play key roles in supporting not only the installation of systems but also the design, selection, integration, adoption, and use of these systems in support of public health practice. As information systems continue to proliferate in public health agencies, there is likely to be an increased need for specialists, and maybe divisions, who not only understand information architecture but also understand core public health business processes. Such insight enables PHI specialists to ensure that information systems in public health agencies meet core business objectives and the needs of end users. The characterization of this segment via PH WINS establishes a baseline that will allow for monitoring of PHI specialists over time as agencies continue to adopt and evolve information systems and their uses.
Another key observation from this analysis is that the PHI segment is distinct from the IT segment of the public health workforce. In fact, the PH WINS classification of PHI as “public health science” in contrast to “administration” appears to be appropriate, given responses on several sections of the survey. Often PHI and IT workers are lumped together because they both support modernization of public health practice through the use of computers and information systems. Yet, their roles and functions within a health department are distinct, and the PH WINS data show they are also distinct with respect to demographics, education, income, distribution among health departments, and core competencies they deem important to their roles within health departments. For example, whereas PHI workers rate data interpretation, finding evidence and applying evidence as important to their day-to-day job, these functions may be less central to the responsibilities of IT workers. This may be because PHI workers not only support public health practice but also contribute to the science of public health. For example, where an IT specialist may provide support for general systems and software (eg, desktop computers, keeping a server running), a PHI specialist may contribute to syndrome definitions or integrated visualizations of multisource data feeds that enhances epidemiology. Therefore, future studies as well as training should consider these differences before lumping them into a single job classification.
PH WINS also highlights interesting but confusing characterizations of the PHI workforce. For example, PHI workers tend to earn less than IT workers, yet the PHI segment tends to have higher educational attainment than the IT segment. This disparity could be due to several factors including age, region, supervisory status, and population served. Furthermore, PHI workers were evenly distributed across jurisdictions whereas IT workers were concentrated in larger SHAs. It is unclear from these data whether smaller SHAs contract out IT workers or cooperatively share IT support with other, neighboring SHAs.
In addition to helping classify PHI workers, PH WINS supports identifying and benchmarking PHI training needs for the broader public health workforce. Our analysis examined PHI-related trends and information needs, most notably the trend toward the use of electronic health information. While the responses to these questions further reveal distinctions between the PHI, IT, and CL segments of the workforce, they also highlight similar needs across groups of workers. All groups indicated that more emphasis needs to be placed on the use of electronic health data; and 3 of the 4 groups indicated that finding, interpreting, and applying data to practice are both important and key training needs. Furthermore, we observed mixed responses to the technology training questions, with roughly 1 in 5 respondents indicating that health departments may not provide sufficient technology training for the current workforce. As public health agencies continue to adopt electronic systems to manage larger volumes of data, we believe these results indicate a gap with respect to workers' capacity to access, locate, interpret, and apply electronic data in the course of their job function.
Responses related to computer and informatics training suggest a continued need to both enhance the curricula in schools of public health and training programs that target the existing workforce. Currently, informatics is considered a key component13 of a 21st-century MPH degree by the Association of Schools & Programs for Public Health and has been proposed as foundational content for the MPH and DrPH degrees by the Council on Education for Public Health. Yet, there are currently few PHI programs.14 These recommendations will help informatics find its way into curricula at accredited schools of public health, but the adoption process will likely take several years to be fully realized. For example, although widely recognized as important to clinical practice for many years, adoption of informatics as foundational content in medical schools has been slow.28 , 29 In addition, it will take many years for trained graduates to become established throughout public health agencies. Therefore, practice-based training programs will be necessary to support existing workers as well as new public health professionals who do not receive such training in their academic program. There have been existing efforts by the Public Health Informatics Institute, the American Medical Informatics Association, and the CDC. While beneficial, these or similar programs will need to increase in capacity to meet the needs of the larger workforce. Future work and research must continue to design, implement, and assess training programs that address the broad needs.
All studies have limitations that warrant caution when interpreting the results. Despite a rigorous methodology and representative participation from all geographic regions and jurisdiction sizes, 13 states did not participate in the PH WINS. This may limit its generalizability to all SHAs, although this weakness is mitigated somewhat by the data cleaning and weighting scheme. Furthermore, our analyses did not correct or adjust for differences based on age, education, population size, or years in public health. Additional analyses may be necessary to confirm patterns and trends, including determining which differences between groups are both statistically and meaningfully different.
More germane to this analysis is the lack of clear definitions around the self-identified job role within the health department. Since PH WINS did not ask respondents to provide exact titles or describe example job responsibilities or functions, there is no way to independently validate that a self-identified PHI respondent actually performs typical PHI job functions. It is feasible that some IT specialists may have selected PHI as their role, and equally plausible is that PHI specialists may have indicated they serve in an IT role. Furthermore, respondents' selection of their job type may vary by state, based on similar roles being given different titles or job classifications. Given overlap between PHI and other PHS roles, it may also be the case that some information management workers, such as epidemiologists, self-identified as PHI workers, whereas others did not.
There is also the potential for persons in non-IT or noninformatics roles to perform PHI functions, further confounding the results. For example, since some existing PHI specialists likely were trained originally as epidemiologists or another job duty before specializing in PHI, they may have reported their role as something other than PHI or IT. It is also possible that epidemiologists may perform PHI functions as part of their regular duties. For example, configuration of a syndromic surveillance system could just as easily be performed by a savvy epidemiologist as a PHI specialist. Electronic laboratory reporting interfaces and system maintenance might also be performed by epidemiologists in areas where there is no funding for PHI specialists.
Future analyses of the PHI role should therefore seek to explore the range of job classifications used in health departments, the informatics functions performed by non-PHI specialists, and the functions that informatics specialists play within a health department, including the variety of functional areas (eg, communicable disease, environmental health) they serve. This not only will help further define the specialty of PHI but also will help further clarify the informatics competencies needed by the broader public health workforce.
Information systems and technologies are revolutionizing the delivery of health care as well as the practice of public health. Just as we have observed a growing demand for informatics capacity in health care organizations, a similar process is unfolding in the public health sector. Sufficient capacity requires both informatics specialists and general informatics competencies among the broader public health workforce. Results from PH WINS establish a baseline against which future growth and maturation of the PHI workforce, as well as expanding and evolving informatics training needs for the broader workforce, can be measured.
1. Magnuson JA, O'Carroll P. Introduction to public health informatics
. In: Magnuson JA, Fu JPC, eds. Public Health Informatics
and Information Systems
: London, England: Springer; 2014:3–18.
2. Massoudi BL, Goodman KW, Gotham IJ, et al. An informatics agenda for public health: summarized recommendations from the 2011 AMIA PHI Conference. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(5):688–695.
3. Dixon BE, Gibson PJ, Grannis SJ. Estimating increased electronic laboratory reporting volumes for meaningful use: implications for the public health workforce
. Online J Public Health Inform. 2014;5(3):225.
4. Dixon BE, Siegel JA, Oemig TV, Grannis SJ. Electronic health information quality challenges and interventions to improve public health surveillance data and practice. Public Health Rep. 2013;128(6):546–553.
5. Savel TG, Foldy S. The role of public health informatics
in enhancing public health surveillance. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2012;61:20–24.
6. Comer KF, Grannis S, Dixon BE, Bodenhamer DJ, Wiehe SE. Incorporating geospatial capacity within clinical data systems to address social determinants of health. Public Health Rep. 2011;126(suppl 3):54–61.
7. Jalali A, Olabode OA, Bell CM. Leveraging cloud computing to address public health disparities: an analysis of the SPHPS. Online J Public Health Inform. 2012;4(3).
8. Dixon BE, Jabour AM, Phillips EO, Marrero DG. An informatics approach to medication adherence assessment and improvement using clinical, billing, and patient-entered data. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(3):517–521.
9. Evans W, Nielsen PE, Szekely DR, et al. Dose-response effects of the text4baby mobile health program: randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2015;3(1):e12.
10. Ten Hoor G, Hoebe CJ, van Bergen JE, Brouwers EE, Ruiter RA, Kok G. The influence of two different invitation letters on Chlamydia
testing participation: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e24.
11. Thacker SB, Qualters JR, Lee LM. Public health surveillance in the United States: evolution and challenges. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2012;61:3–9.
12. Smith PF, Hadler JL, Stanbury M, Rolfs RT, Hopkins RS. “Blueprint version 2.0”: updating public health surveillance for the 21st century. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2013;19(3):231–239.
14. Joshi A, Perin DM. Gaps in the existing public health informatics
training programs: a challenge to the development of a skilled global workforce
. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2012;9:1–13.
15. Hersh W. The health information technology workforce
: estimations of demands and a framework for requirements. Appl Clin Inform. 2010;1(2):197–212.
16. Hsu CE, Dunn K, Juo HH, et al. Understanding public health informatics
competencies for mid-tier public health practitioners: a web-based survey. Health Inform J. 2012;18(1):66–76.
17. US Department of Labor. Medical doctors, PhDs enter new apprenticeship program. doladmin. April 26, 2012.
18. Scientific Education and Professional Development Program Office. Public Health Informatics
Fellowship Program (PHIFP). http://www.cdc.gov/PHIFP/index.html
. Published 2012. Accessed December 23, 2014.
19. Mac McCullough J, Goodin K. Patterns and correlates of public health informatics
capacity among local health departments: an empirical typology. Online J Public Health Inform. 2014;6(3):e199.
20. Leider JP, Bharthapudi K, Pineau V, Liu L, Harper E. The methods behind PH WINS. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;21(suppl 6):S28–S35.
22. Shapiro JS, Genes N, Kuperman G, Chason K; Clinical Advisory Committee H1N1 Working Group NYCIE; Richardson LD. Health information exchange, biosurveillance efforts, and emergency department crowding during the spring 2009 H1N1 outbreak in New York City. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(3):274–279.
23. Kulikowski CA, Shortliffe EH, Currie LM, et al. AMIA Board white paper: definition of biomedical informatics and specification of core competencies for graduate education in the discipline. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(6):931–938.
24. Gibson CJ, Dixon BE, Abrams K. Convergent evolution of health information management and health informatics: a perspective on the future of information professionals in health care. Appl Clin Inform. 2015;6(1):163–184.
25. Consortium from Altarum Institute; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; National Coordinating Center for Public Health Services and Systems Research. A national research agenda for public health services and systems. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(5)(suppl 1):S72–S78.
26. Lavarreda SA, Brown ER, Bolduc CD. Underinsurance in the United States: an interaction of costs to consumers, benefit design, and access to care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:471–482.
28. McGowan JJ, Passiment M, Hoffman HM. Educating medical students as competent users of health information technologies: the MSOP data. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(pt 2):1414–1418.
29. Detmer DE, Munger BS, Lehmann CU. Clinical informatics board certification: history, current status, and predicted impact on the clinical informatics workforce
. Appl Clin Inform. 2010;1(1):11–18.
Keywords:Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
information needs; information systems; public health informatics; state health agency; survey research; workforce