Skip Navigation Links
May/June 2019Expand May/June 2019
March/April 2019Expand March/April 2019
January/February 2019Expand January/February 2019
November/December 2018Expand November/December 2018
September/October 2018Expand September/October 2018
July/August 2018Expand July/August 2018
May/June 2018Expand May/June 2018
March/April 2018Expand March/April 2018
January/February 2018Expand January/February 2018
July/August 2017Expand July/August 2017
May/June 2017Expand May/June 2017
March/April 2017Expand March/April 2017
January/February 2017Expand January/February 2017
November/December 2016Expand November/December 2016
July/August 2016Expand July/August 2016
May/June 2016Expand May/June 2016
March/April 2016Expand March/April 2016
January/February 2016Expand January/February 2016
November/December 2015Expand November/December 2015
July/August 2015Expand July/August 2015
May/June 2015Expand May/June 2015
March/April 2015Expand March/April 2015
January/February 2015Expand January/February 2015
ArchiveExpand Archive
November/December 2017Expand November/December 2017
PulseTemplate
September/October 2015Expand September/October 2015
September/October 2016Expand September/October 2016
September/October 2017Expand September/October 2017
Special Edition - EPRExpand Special Edition - EPR
Special Edition: Title V Technical Assistance MeetingExpand Special Edition: Title V Technical Assistance Meeting
Title V Technical Assistance Meeting

 Success Story

Life Course Indicators Implementation

By Jennifer Farfalla, MPH
Analyst for Quality Improvement and Life Course

In the summer of 2013, AMCHP engaged seven state teams (Florida, Iowa, Lousiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska and North Carolina) to identify and finalize a set of indicators that can be used to measure progress in maternal and child health through a life course approach. In the year that followed, AMCHP identified a number of factors that could slow the uptake of the life course indicators by state and local health departments. Limiting factors for use of the indicators include the need for analysts to use data sources or methods outside of the typical MCH field, staff time needed for analysis, and figuring out ways to interpret and communicate results of indicator analysis. In August of 2014, with support from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, AMCHP sent out a request for applications for a Life Course Indicators Technical Assistance project. The project was designed to help states overcome barriers to analysis of the indicators and the communication of the data post-analysis.

In total, eight state teams (Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska and Wyoming) were accepted into the project. The key components of this TA opportunity included:

  • Analytic assistance in calculating a subset of the life course indicators
  • Virtual learning events that focus on communicating health disparities and social equity issues, including information from leading national experts in the fields of life course, health equity and communication
  • Expert consultation around communication of the implications for equity components of life course indicators
  • Peer-to-peer learning network to support each other (SharePoint collaborative site, peer-to-peer sharing webinars)
  • Travel funding for two team members to attend an in-person meeting to share their work and receive in-person technical assistance
  • Individualized feedback to state teams to help identify key messages and design products
  • Creation of at least one communications product (policy or issue brief, fact sheet, needs assessment section, etc.)

Each state put together a team of 10 multidisciplinary members from their MCH staff, internal partners, and community partners to decide on a subset of indicators, analyze data, take part in monthly learning events and peer sharing sessions, and use their indicator data to create a communications product. The teams were provided with expert communication consultation from Glynis Shea, communications director of the Konopka Institute for Best Practices in Adolescent Health.

Each state has taken on a different subset of indicators and is designing a different communications product. A brief description of the ambitious and innovative projects each state participating in this TA is currently working on is below: 

  • Alaska: The integration of broad partnerships into their infant mortality COIIN
  • Arizona: Analysis and reporting of data on a subset of more than 20 life course indicators
  • Illinois: An infographic connecting Illinois data points to social determinants of health
  • Iowa: Analysis of data on the adolescent health life course indicators and a communications resource about this data for school nurses
  • Louisiana: A presentation to introduce the concept of concentrated disadvantage
  • Maine: A strategy for communicating their life course resources to policymakers
  • Nebraska: A fact sheet focusing on the connection between concentrated disadvantage and teen pregnancy rates
  • Wyoming: A communications product supporting a multisectoral approach to improving early childhood outcomes

The Life Course Intensive TA project will complete at the end of February. As states finish up these impressive projects, we hope to share some of their individual life course indicator analysis and communication success stories in future Pulse issues.