You have to give the the University of Wisconsin and the Robert J. Wood Foundation a healthy round of applause for the ambitiousness of their undertaking, even if some critics doubt the relevance of their findings.

We refer to the annual County Health Rankings pieced together each year by the university and the foundation that attempt to rank by health more than 3,000 counties across the United States within their own state. A variety of metrics are used for the report, which was released recently and — disappointingly but unsurprisingly — determined that Robeson County was the unhealthiest of all of North Carolina’s 100 counties.

Our own test, which is done with the eye, gives us confidence that the report, if not a bulls’eye, is pretty darn accurate with regard to this county.

North Carolina’s health directors, including our own, Bill Smith, aren’t convinced of the report’s worthiness.

Colleen Bridger, president of the association and Orange County’s health director, sent a letter to the co-director of the annual County Health Rankings that read in part: “… While we appreciate your intention to bring attention to the social determinants of health and the role they play in the community’s health, we believe the ranking of counties must stop. The methodology is seriously flawed.”

Smith also protested, but his letter was to this newspaper. He pointed out that it would be unlikely for five counties to pass Robeson, which was 95th last year in the state, in a single year, tooted his department’s own horn and added perspective.

He wrote: “The Healthy Robeson Task Force has been addressing issues such as infant mortality, substance use, obesity, exercise, smoking, nutrition, etc. for years and the Community Health Assessment has identified theses areas as well. Lets face it, whether we are 100 or 95 or 90, it is still a largely unhealthy population in Robeson County. But even those ranked at the top in this state must temper their enthusiasm with the knowledge that North Carolina is the 34th healthiest state, so there is a lot of room to grow.”

Bridger, Smith and other health directors question the validity of the report largely because of how information is collected, and work-arounds when there is no information.

Dr. Bridget Catlin, co-director of the County Health Rankings, suggested that the lens be pulled back, and that the report provides a bigger picture that can be useful.

“In a state like North Carolina where there are 100 counties, if you moved by five ranks that’s a 5 percent change. Don’t worry about that too much, look at what’s happening over time … . Smaller changes are just the nature of fluctuations in data that are really hard to control for,” she said.

We understand Smith’s objections as he surely feels as if a finger has been pointed toward him and his staff. But we believe a local Health Department’s ability to move the needle of a county’s collective health in the short term is right next to nil.

In the end health is an individual’s responsibility, and if the report inspires one person to put down the potato chips, get off the couch, grab an apple and take a walk, then we submit it has value.