Objectives　Although numerous studies have explored early stage dementia-intensive support teams, focusing on their effectiveness and associated challenges, there is insufficient research on community comprehensive support centers that use support teams.

Thus, we focused on community comprehensive support centers from the perspectives of their operators and users, examined the actualities and challenges of support team use, and considered ways to encourage such use.

Methods　A questionnaire survey was mailed to 2,000 community general support centers selected through evenly-spaced sampling from 5,625 centers in Japan. The survey was conducted from November to December 2022. The survey included basic attributes (institution and presence of a support team), number of times a support team was used, actual number of users, and issues with support team use. For the analysis, we defined centers with and without support teams as “operators” and “users,” respectively, and analyzed each group. The participants’ demographic details and data related to the frequency of use of support teams were tabulated. Text mining was used to analyze free-field responses.

Results　A total of 773 responses were received (response rate; 38.8%). Among the respondents, 313 (41.5%) had support teams and 441 (58.4%) did not. The support team use rate was 86.6% for the former and 79.4% for the latter. In 2021, most respondents noted that approximately “1–5 individuals” used support teams, regardless of whether the support center had one.

Challenges with support team use identified by centers without support teams were as follows; requirements of support recipients and rules for use under “mechanisms of use,” involvement of team doctors and expertise of team members under “support functions,” and collaborative support relationship and dissemination of project information under “system for use.” Support centers with support teams identified the following challenges; requirements of support recipients and management rules under “management mechanisms,” involvement of team doctors and healthcare collaboration under “support functions,” and team members role awareness and staff shortage under “management system.”

Conclusion　Many comprehensive centers infrequently used support teams. To promote support team use, the system must be reviewed from the operator and user perspectives to simplify the support team system’s rules and ease the requirements for support recipients. Moreover, all dementia supporters must engage in regular and ongoing discussions about the dementia support system, focusing on the municipal responsibility for system operation.

Objectives　Public health nurses (PHNs) are necessary in introducing evidence-based health programs to address various health challenges. This study aimed to identify the factors related to PHNs’ ability to implement programs across different career-level groups.

Methods　A self-administered questionnaire was administered to PHNs working in prefectures or cities with public health centers. PHNs were categorized into three career-level groups based on their seniority and position; novice with ≥ 5 years of experience, no-position with ≥ 6 years of experience without a position, and with-position with ≥ 6 years of experience holding a position. Simple regression analysis was conducted using the Implementation Degree Assessment Sheet (Okamoto et al., 2022; IDAS) score as the dependent variable and experience in developing new projects, learning experiences, horizontal development exposure, and PHNs’ competency scale scores as independent variables. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted with the IDAS score as the dependent variable and statistically significant variables in the simple regression analysis as the independent variables. The competency measurement scales used were the Professional Development Scale (PDS), Reflective Practice Skill Scale (RPS), and Research Utilization Competency Scale (RUC).

Results　We obtained 702 out of 966 valid responses (72.7%). The overall mean IDAS scores was 115.7; 107.6 for novice PHNs, 111.3 for no-position PHNs, and 119.6 for with-position PHNs. Multiple regression analysis revealed that RPS and PDS scores contributed to novice and with-position PHNs’ abilities. Additionally, “recognition of the importance of horizontal development: agree” significantly influenced novice PHNs’ ability, whereas RUC score contributed to with-position PHNs’ ability. RUC scores and recognition of the current implementation of horizontal development significantly contributed to the ability of No-position PHNs.

Conclusion　For improving PHNs’ program implementation abilities, novice PHNs should focus on reflective practices, improve professional knowledge and skills, acquire knowledge and competence in program implementation, and improve understanding of its importance. Moreover, no-position PHNs must collect, examine, and use information, such as recent research findings. With-position PHNs must continuously improve their skills and apply them comprehensively in management and program implementation. These findings underscore the importance of tailored program implementation training for each career level, providing opportunities to reflect on practice and one’s own activities, and assessing the level of mastery.

Objective　Addressing the needs of a population that is indifferent to health is becoming increasingly important. Previous research has developed the “Interest in Health Scale,” which assesses the level of interest in health. It comprises three subscales; health consciousness, motivation, and value. This study aimed to enhance the usability of the 12-item Interest in Health Scale by creating a shortened version.

Methods　Using data from a web survey of 800 participants, factor analysis was conducted on the 12-item Interest in Health Scale to select items for the shortened version. From the factor analysis, two items were selected from each subscale based on their factor loadings to create a 6-item scale, and a 4-item scale was created, excluding two items from the health value subscale. We evaluated the reliability of the newly created shortened version, its correlation with the 12-item version, and its validity through correlations with health literacy (CCHL scale) and lifestyle habits (diet, exercise, alcohol consumption, and smoking).

Results　Cronbach’s alpha was 0.72 and 0.80 for the 6- and 4-item scale, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the 12-item and 6- and 4-item versions were 0.94 and 0.88, respectively. The correlation with health literacy were 0.28, 0.27, and 0.22 for the 12-, 6-, and 4-item versions, respectively. The correlation coefficients for the four lifestyle habits were similar across all the three scales.

Conclusion　This study created 6- and 4-item versions of the scale with reliability and validity comparable to that of the 12-item version. While the 6-item version, containing all three subscales, is preferable for measuring health interest more easily, the 4-item version, which excludes health value for convenience, can be used.