Dataset Information

Training needs and supports for evidence-based decision making among the public health workforce in the United States.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Preparing the public health workforce to practice evidence-based decision making (EBDM) is necessary to effectively impact health outcomes. Few studies report on training needs in EBDM at the national level in the United States. We report competency gaps to practice EBDM based on four U.S. national surveys we conducted with the state and local public health workforce between 2008 and 2013. METHODS:We compared self-reported data from four U.S. national online surveys on EBDM conducted between 2008 and 2013. Participants rated the importance of each EBDM competency then rated how available the competency is to them when needed on a Likert scale. We calculated a gap score by subtracting availability scores from importance scores. We compared mean gaps across surveys and utilized independent samples t tests and Cohen's d values to compare state level gaps. In addition, participants in the 2013 state health department survey selected and ranked three items that "would most encourage you to utilize EBDM in your work" and items that "would be most useful to you in applying EBDM in your work". We calculated the percentage of participants who ranked each item among their top three. RESULTS:The largest competency gaps were consistent across all four surveys: economic evaluation, communicating research to policymakers, evaluation designs, and adapting interventions. Participants from the 2013 state level survey reported significantly larger mean importance and availability scores (p <0.001, d =1.00, and p <0.001, d?=?.78 respectively) and smaller mean gaps (p <0.01, d?=?.19) compared to the 2008 survey. Participants most often selected "leaders prioritizing EBDM" (67.9%) among top ways to encourage EBDM use. "EBDM training for specific areas" was most commonly ranked as important in applying EBDM (64.3%). CONCLUSION:Perceived importance and availability of EBDM competencies may be increasing as supports for EBDM continue to grow through trends in funding, training, and resources. However, more capacity building is needed overall, with specific attention to the largest competency gaps. More work with public health departments to both situate trainings to boost competency in these areas and continued improvements for organizational practices (leadership prioritization) are possible next steps to sustain EBDM efforts.

SUBMITTER: Jacob RR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4245845 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Training needs and supports for evidence-based decision making among the public health workforce in the United States.

Jacob Rebekah R RR Baker Elizabeth A EA Allen Peg P Dodson Elizabeth A EA Duggan Kathleen K Fields Robert R Sequeira Sonia S Brownson Ross C RC

BMC health services research 20141114

<h4>Background</h4>Preparing the public health workforce to practice evidence-based decision making (EBDM) is necessary to effectively impact health outcomes. Few studies report on training needs in EBDM at the national level in the United States. We report competency gaps to practice EBDM based on four U.S. national surveys we conducted with the state and local public health workforce between 2008 and 2013.<h4>Methods</h4>We compared self-reported data from four U.S. national online surveys on ...[more]

PMID: 25398652

Similar Datasets

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:CONTEXT:Although core scientific skills remain a priority to public health, preventing and responding to today's leading causes of death require the workforce to build additional strategic skills to impact the social, community-based, and economic determinants of health. The 2017 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey allows novel regional analysis of training needs, both individually and across 8 strategic skill domains. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this article is to describe the training needs of public health staff nationally, across the 10 Department of Health and Human Services Regions. DESIGN:The Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey was a Web-based survey fielded to 100 000 staff nationwide across 2 major frames: state health agency-central office and local health department. State-based respondents were fielded on a census approach, with locals participating in a more complex sampling design. Balanced repeated replication weights were used to address nonresponse and sampling. SETTING:State and local health departments. PARTICIPANTS:Respondents from state and local health departments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:This article draws from the training needs portion of Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey. Descriptive statistics are generated, showing training needs gaps. Inferential analyses pertain to gaps across Region and supervisory status, using Pearson χ test and Rao-Scott design-adjusted χ test. RESULTS:Training needs varied across regions and work setting. Certain strategic skills tended to see larger, consistent gaps regardless of Region or setting, including Budgeting & Finance, Change Management, Systems Thinking, and Developing a Vision for a Healthy Community. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the data suggest substantial interregional variation in training needs. Until now, this picture has been incomplete; disparate assessments across health departments, Regions, and disciplines could not be combined into a national picture. Regionally focused training centers are well situated to address Region-specific needs while supporting the broader building of capacity in strategic skills nationwide.

Project description:BackgroundSince 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners' opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training.MethodsSurvey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate in an online survey in April 2012.: Categorical survey responses were expressed as percentages. Written responses were categorized according to common themes regarding effects of reporting on participants' medical management of patients. The study was primarily qualitative and was not powered to make statistical conclusions.ResultsOf 1019 surveys sent, 323 participants (31.7%) responded from around the United States, and 275 provided complete data. Nearly all (273 of 282; 96.8%) participants responded that public reporting sometimes or always affected other providers' practices, and 264 of 281 (93.9%) responded that other practitioners were motivated to deny care to poor-prognosis patients to improve reported success rates. However, only 121 of 282 (42.9%) indicated that public reporting influenced their own medical management. The majority of respondents agreed that public reporting may hinder adoption of single embryo transfer practices (194 of 299; 64.9%) and contribute to the persistent rate of twinning in in vitro fertilization (187 of 279; 67%). A small majority (153 of 279; 54.8%) felt that public reporting did not benefit fellow training, and 58 (61.7%) of the 94 participants who trained fellows believed that having fellows perform embryo transfers reduced pregnancy rates. A small majority (163 of 277; 58.8%) of respondents reported their ART success rates on clinical websites. However, the majority (200 of 275; 72.7%) of respondents compared their success rates with those of other clinics. Finally, most respondents (211 of 277; 76%) believed that most centers that advertised their success rates did so in ways that were misleading to patients.ConclusionsPublic reporting of ART clinical outcomes is intended to drive improvement, promote trust between patients and providers, and inform consumers and payers. However, providers reported that they modified their practices, felt others denied care to poor-prognosis patients, and limited participation of trainees in procedures in response to public reporting of ART outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveResearch suggests recently graduated urology residents do not feel ready for independent practice. We conducted a study to determine if Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) minimum case requirements, resident case logs, and graduating resident perceived readiness for practice are aligned with the procedural demand and needs of the current urology workforce.DesignCorrelative study comparing the association between (1) workforce demand and ACGME case requirements, and (2) workforce demand and perceived resident competency. Three distinct datasets were used; (1) the 2017 Medicare Part B National Summary Data File; (2) the 2017 National Data Report published by the ACGME; and (3) a graduating resident survey from Okhunov et al. SETTING: N/A.ParticipantsN/A.ResultsIn 2017, there were a total of 6,784,696 urologic cases performed through Medicare. We found nonsignificant positive associations between resident case logs (rho = 0.16, p = 0.5784), ACGME minimum procedure requirements (rho = 0.42, p = 0.1255), and Medicare procedural demand. Our 15 index procedures accounted for 21.1% (n = 1,431,775) of all Medicare cases, with a median number of 7706 procedures. Endopyelotomy was the least common procedure (n = 98), while cystoscopy was the most common (n = 980,623). Medicare case volume was positively correlated with graduating residents' procedural confidence (r = 0.86, p < 0.0001). We identified four categories with varied alignment of training and demand: (1) high volume and high confidence, (2) high volume and low confidence, (3) low volume and high confidence, and (4) low volume and low confidence.ConclusionsOptimizing urology residency training is time-sensitive and important. Using national Medicare data coupled with recently graduated urology resident survey results, we provide a guiding framework for improving the alignment of training with workforce demand. Informed by these results, we recommend altering training requirements to reflect these needs.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsTo 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.Findings18 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.ConclusionsTo 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.

Dataset Information

Training needs and supports for evidence-based decision making among the public health workforce in the United States.

Publications

Training needs and supports for evidence-based decision making among the public health workforce in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets