Public Input Process

Input from the general public and key stakeholders have always played an important part in the work coordinated by the Utah Department of Health (UDOH), Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (MCH). The information from the public, gathered through multiple collection strategies, is a valued part of the annual MCH Block Grant application process. During CY2019 and 2020, the 2020 MCH Needs Assessment activities required new means and strategies of collecting public input and alternative methods were designed. An important step for the 2020 Needs assessment was the MCH Bureau’s collaboration with the University of Utah (UofU). The University was contracted to conduct various components of the Needs Assessment and they assisted in the process by conducting key informant interviews and focus groups. They also held stakeholder meetings to select health priorities, as well as assisting in the analysis of qualitative data obtained from the various surveys distributed by the MCH Bureau.

The methods began first with the comprehensive General Stakeholder Needs Assessment survey with key stakeholders. This survey was coordinated through the Utah MCH Bureau’s Data Resources Program (DRP) with MCH/Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN) Bureau staff. The survey instrument allowed participants to choose between five health domains they had interest in responding to and provide their input. Along with questions inquiring on general demographics of the participant, each domain listed possible domain specific issues and participants were able to select and prioritize their top seven issues. These issues were those that the recipient perceived as significant issues and barriers in their communities. The survey provided opportunity for participants to list an issue that was not addressed in the prepared list. Open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify needed services in their communities. The Needs Assessment survey was distributed online and made available in both English and Spanish. A link to the survey was posted on the UDOH website and also made accessible to public via Facebook in order to “boost” for increased visibility for potential participants. The MCH Bureau received 1,892 surveys from participants where specific issues were ranked in at least one of the health domains.

Second, the DRP worked with members of the CSHCN Bureau and Utah Family Voices to implement a statewide survey to parent and caregivers of children with special health care needs. The survey instrument questioned participants on topics such as; health insurance coverage, care coordination, transition, availability of care providers and services and challenges faced in obtaining care. The survey was distributed online and individuals identified as caregivers for special needs children, or youth up to age 21, were invited to participate by the CSHCN Bureau and Utah Family Voices. This survey was also made accessible to the public through the CSHCN Bureau website and the link was posted on Facebook for increased visibility. The DRP received 1,161 completed surveys for data analysis. Several infographics were developed by the DRP based on the results of these two major surveys.

Third, key informant interviews were conducted across the state and involved professionals from various working sectors, such as; healthcare and health department personnel, community leaders, mental health professionals, community leaders and social services professionals. These guided interviews addressed questions on the professional’s role in MCH, the needs and characteristics of the populations they served and recommendations for improving the services of MCH.

Fourth, focus groups organized by the UofU worked to obtain a more complete understanding of health needs and issues of MCH populations by targeting individuals and special groups. The majority of participants to these groups were members of the MCH population; mothers of young children, adolescents, parents of CSHCN. The groups involved open discussion on key topics such as MCH/CSHCN services, perceptions and opinions about MCH needs, MCH gaps and assets, and recommendations of improving services in the community. Using the notes from the focus groups, the UofU analyzed and synthesized information to assist in identifying and selecting priority health domains for the MCH populations.

Fifth, stakeholder meetings played an important role in the prioritization of health domains for the MCH Bureau. The UofU organized regional meetings around the state and offered virtual attendance through video conferencing and by phone. Preliminary results of the Needs Assessment were presented to those participation and participants were asked to engage in interpreting the findings. Responses from the stakeholder meetings were used to further prioritize health issues.

Finally, these stakeholder meetings led to a statewide summit meeting and findings from the surveys conducted for the Needs Assessment and information from focus groups were presented. The MCH Bureau domain leaders presented the recommendations they had on selecting state and national performance measures for the health domains. Summit participants were encouraged to consider five criteria as they considered which health priorities should be addressed by Title V: 1) data-driven, the need is supported by data, 2) feasibility/capacity – Title V programs and local health departments have the capacity to address the need, 3) effective evidence-based intervention – the intervention has an impact on the need, 4) overlap – the selected need overlaps with or is complementary to another priority issue, and 5) resources/sustainability – the state has adequate resources to sustain efforts to meet the need. Those in attendance at the summit were polled in order to collect their input on these recommendation from the bureau and was used to inform on further selection of measures.

From the input gathered from these strategies, the MCH Bureau was able to select 10 of the top health performance measures that will be priority for the MCH over the next five years (FY21-FY25).

1. Perinatal mood and anxiety disorders
2. Access to care
3. Breastfeeding/poor infant nutrition
4. Developmental delays
5. Adolescent mental health
6. Family connectedness
7. Economic stability
8. Family and provider connectedness/Care coordination
9. Transition to adulthood
10. Oral health