Search

Stroke is the third leading cause of death and a leading cause of disability in the United States, with a particularly high burden on the residents of the southeastern states, a region dubbed the Stroke Belt. These five states Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee have formed the Delta States Stroke Consortium to direct efforts to reduce this burden. The consortium is proposing an approach to identify domains where interventions may be instituted and an array of activities that can be implemented in each of the domains. Specific domains include 1) risk factor prevention and control; 2) identification of stroke signs and symptoms and encouragement of appropriate responses; 3) transportation, Emergency Medical Services care, and acute care; 4) secondary prevention; and 5) recovery and rehabilitation management. The array of activities includes 1) education of lay public; 2) education of health professionals; 3) general advocacy and legislative actions; 4) modification of the general environment; and 5) modification of the health care environment. The Delta States Stroke Consortium members propose that together these domains and activities define a structure to guide interventions to reduce the public health burden of stroke in this region.

Introduction Investigators in South Carolina and Alabama assessed the availability of data for measuring 31 policy and environmental indicators for heart disease and stroke prevention. The indicators were intended to determine policy and environmental support for adopting heart disease and stroke prevention guidelines and selected risk factors in 4 settings: community, school, work site, and health care. Methods Research teams used literature searches and key informant interviews to explore the availability of data sources for each indicator. Investigators documented the following 5 qualities for each data source identified: 1) the degree to which the data fit the indicator; 2) the frequency and regularity with which data were collected; 3) the consistency of data collected across time; 4) the costs (time, money, personnel) associated with data collection or access; and 5) the accessibility of data. Results Among the 31 indicators, 11 (35%) have readily available data sources and 4 (13%) have sources that could provide partial measurement. Data sources are available for most indicators in the school setting and for tobacco control policies in all settings. Conclusion Data sources for measuring policy and environmental indicators for heart disease and stroke prevention are limited in availability. Effort and resources are required to develop and implement mechanisms for collecting state and local data on policy and environmental indicators in different settings. The level of work needed to expand data sources is comparable to the extensive work already completed in the school setting and for tobacco control.