Dataset Information

The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.

Methods

To locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.

Findings

18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.

Conclusions

To more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

SUBMITTER: Orton L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3144216 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review.

Orton Lois L Lloyd-Williams Ffion F Taylor-Robinson David D O'Flaherty Martin M Capewell Simon S

PloS one 20110726 7

<h4>Background</h4>The use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.<h4>Methods</h4>To locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were cont ...[more]

PMID: 21818262

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublic health decision-making structures in England have transformed since the implementation of reforms in 2013, with responsibility for public health services and planning having shifted from the "health" boundary to local authority (LA; local government) control. This transformation may have interrupted flows of research evidence use in decision-making and introduced a new political element to public health decision-making. For generators of research evidence, understanding and responding to this new landscape and decision-makers' evidence needs is essential.MethodsWe conducted a systematic scoping review of the literature, drawing upon four databases and undertaking manual searching and citation tracking. Included studies were English-based, published in 2010 onwards, and were focused on public health decision-making, including the utilisation or underutilisation of research evidence use, in local (regional or sub-regional) areas. All studies presented empirical findings collected through primary research methods or through the reanalysis of existing primary data.ResultsFrom a total of 903 records, 23 papers from 21 studies were deemed to be eligible and were included for further data extraction. Three clear trends in evidence use were identified: (i) the primacy of local evidence, (ii) the important role of local experts in providing evidence and knowledge, and (iii) the high value placed on local evaluation evidence despite the varying methodological rigour. Barriers to the use of research evidence included issues around access and availability of applicable research evidence, and indications that the use of evidence could be perceived as a bureaucratic process. Two new factors resulting from reforms to public health structures were identified that potentially changed existing patterns of research evidence use and decision-making requirements: (i) greater emphasis among public health practitioners on the perceived uniqueness of LA areas and structures following devolution of public health into LAs and (ii) challenges introduced in responding to higher levels of local political accountability.ConclusionsThere is a need to better understand and respond to the evidence needs of decision-makers working in public health and to work more collaboratively in developing solutions to the underutilisation of research evidence in decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.MethodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.ResultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.

Project description:BackgroundWith rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.MethodsA systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.ConclusionThere are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough important syntheses and theoretical works exist in relation to understanding the organisational factors that facilitate research use, these contributions differ in their scope and object of study as well as their theoretical underpinnings. Therefore, from an exploratory angle, it may be useful to map out the current literature on organisational factors of research use in public health policy-making when revisiting existing theories and frameworks to gain further theoretical insights.MethodsHerein, a scoping review technique and thematic content analysis were used to bring together findings from both synthesised and empirical studies of different types to map out the organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making.ResultsA total of 14 reviews and 40 empirical studies were included in the analysis. These were thematically coded and the intra-organisational factors reported as enabling research use were examined. Five main categories of organisational factors that advance research use in policy organisations - (1) individual factors, (2) the management of research integration, (3) organisational systems and infrastructures of research use, (4) institutional structures and rules for policy-making, and (5) organisational characteristics - were derived as well as 18 subcategories and a total of 64 specific factors, where 27 factors were well supported by research.ConclusionsUsing a scoping review methodology, the intra-organisational factors influencing research use in policy-making (including individual factors) were systematically mapped and the theories applied in this area of research were assessed. The review findings confirm the importance of an intra-organisational perspective when exploring research use, showing that many organisational factors are critical facilitators of research use but also that many factors and mechanisms are understudied. The synthesis shows a lack of studies on politicians and the need for more theoretically founded research. Despite increased efforts to update the existing evidential and theoretical basis of research use, we still need frameworks that combine different approaches and theories to help us grasp the complex organisational mechanisms that facilitate research use in policy settings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A range of evidence informs decision-making on innovation in health care, including formal research findings, local data and professional opinion. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of evidence for innovations into practice. In addition to the characteristics of evidence, it is known that processes at the individual level influence its impact on decision-making. Less is known about the ways in which processes at the professional, organisational and local system level shape evidence use and its role in decisions to adopt innovations. METHODS:A systematic scoping review was used to review the health literature on innovations within acute and primary care and map processes at the professional, organisational and local system levels which influence how evidence informs decision-making on innovation. Stakeholder feedback on the themes identified was collected via focus groups to test and develop the findings. RESULTS:Following database and manual searches, 31 studies reporting primary qualitative data met the inclusion criteria: 24 were of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the thematic analysis. Evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by multi-level processes (professional, organisational, local system) and interactions across these levels. Preferences for evidence vary by professional group and health service setting. Organisations can shape professional behaviour by requiring particular forms of evidence to inform decision-making. Pan-regional organisations shape innovation decision-making at lower levels. Political processes at all levels shape the selection and use of evidence in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:The synthesis of results from primary qualitative studies found that evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by processes at multiple levels. Interactions between different levels shape evidence use in decision-making (e.g. professional groups and organisations can use local systems to validate evidence and legitimise innovations, while local systems can tailor or frame evidence to influence activity at lower levels). Organisational leaders need to consider whether the environment in which decisions are made values diverse evidence and stakeholder perspectives. Further qualitative research on decision-making practices that highlights how and why different types of evidence come to count during decisions, and tracks the political aspects of decisions about innovation, is needed.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are an important source of evidence for public health decision-making, but length and technical jargon tend to hinder their use. In non-English speaking countries, inaccessibility of information in the native language often represents an additional barrier. In line with our vision to strengthen evidence-based public health in the German-speaking world, we developed a German language summary format for systematic reviews of public health interventions and undertook user-testing with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.MethodsWe used several guiding principles and core elements identified from the literature to produce a prototype summary format and applied it to a Cochrane review on the impacts of changing portion and package sizes on selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Following a pre-test in each of the three countries, we carried out 18 user tests with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland using the 'think-aloud' method. We analysed participants' comments according to the facets credibility, usability, understandability, usefulness, desirability, findability, identification and accessibility. We also identified elements that hindered the facile and satisfying use of the summary format, and revised it based on participants' feedback.ResultsThe summary format was well-received; participants particularly appreciated receiving information in their own language. They generally found the summary format useful and a credible source of information, but also signalled several barriers to a positive user experience such as an information-dense structure and difficulties with understanding statistical terms. Many of the identified challenges were addressed through modifications of the summary format, in particular by allowing for flexible length, placing more emphasis on key messages and relevance for public health practice, expanding the interpretation aid for statistical findings, providing a glossary of technical terms, and only including graphical GRADE ratings. Some barriers to uptake, notably the participants' wish for actionable recommendations and contextual information, could not be addressed.ConclusionsParticipants welcomed the initiative, but user tests also revealed their problems with understanding and interpreting the findings summarised in our prototype format. The revised summary format will be used to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews of public health interventions.

Project description:While increasing attention is placed on using evidence-based decision making (EBDM) to improve public health, there is little research assessing the current EBDM capacity of the public health workforce. Public health agencies serve a wide range of populations with varying levels of resources. Our survey tool allows an individual agency to collect data that reflects its unique workforce.Health department leaders and academic researchers collaboratively developed and conducted cross-sectional surveys in Kansas and Mississippi (USA) to assess EBDM capacity. Surveys were delivered to state- and local-level practitioners and community partners working in chronic disease control and prevention. The core component of the surveys was adopted from a previously tested instrument and measured gaps (importance versus availability) in competencies for EBDM in chronic disease. Other survey questions addressed expectations and incentives for using EBDM, self-efficacy in three EBDM skills, and estimates of EBDM within the agency.In both states, participants identified communication with policymakers, use of economic evaluation, and translation of research to practice as top competency gaps. Self-efficacy in developing evidence-based chronic disease control programs was lower than in finding or using data. Public health practitioners estimated that approximately two-thirds of programs in their agency were evidence-based. Mississippi participants indicated that health department leaders' expectations for the use of EBDM was approximately twice that of co-workers' expectations and that the use of EBDM could be increased with training and leadership prioritization.The assessment of EBDM capacity in Kansas and Mississippi built upon previous nationwide findings to identify top gaps in core competencies for EBDM in chronic disease and to estimate a percentage of programs in U.S. health departments that are evidence-based. The survey can serve as a valuable tool for other health departments and non-governmental organizations to assess EBDM capacity within their own workforce and to assist in the identification of approaches that will enhance the uptake of EBDM processes in public health programming and policymaking. Localized survey findings can provide direction for focusing workforce training programs and can indicate the types of incentives and policies that could affect the culture of EBDM in the workplace.

Dataset Information

The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review.

Background

Methods

Findings

Conclusions

Publications

The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets