Dataset Information

How the "Understanding Research Evidence" Web-Based Video Series From the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools Contributes to Public Health Capacity to Practice Evidence-Informed Decision Making: Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) offers workshops and webinars to build public health capacity for evidence-informed decision-making. Despite positive feedback for NCCMT workshops and resources, NCCMT users found key terms used in research papers difficult to understand. The Understanding Research Evidence (URE) videos use plain language, cartoon visuals, and public health examples to explain complex research concepts. The videos are posted on the NCCMT website and YouTube channel.

Objective

The first four videos in the URE web-based video series, which explained odds ratios (ORs), confidence intervals (CIs), clinical significance, and forest plots, were evaluated. The evaluation examined how the videos affected public health professionals' practice. A mixed-methods approach was used to examine the delivery mode and the content of the videos. Specifically, the evaluation explored (1) whether the videos were effective at increasing knowledge on the four video topics, (2) whether public health professionals were satisfied with the videos, and (3) how public health professionals applied the knowledge gained from the videos in their work.

Methods

A three-part evaluation was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the first four URE videos. The evaluation included a Web-based survey, telephone interviews, and pretest and posttests, which evaluated public health professionals' experience with the videos and how the videos affected their public health work. Participants were invited to participate in this evaluation through various open access, public health email lists, through informational flyers and posters at the Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) conference, and through targeted recruitment to NCCMT's network.

Results

In the Web-based surveys (n=46), participants achieved higher scores on the knowledge assessment questions from watching the OR (P=.04), CI (P=.04), and clinical significance (P=.05) videos but not the forest plot (P=.12) video, as compared with participants who had not watched the videos. The pretest and posttest (n=124) demonstrated that participants had a better understanding of forest plots (P<.001) and CIs (P<.001) after watching the videos. Due to small sample size numbers, there were insufficient pretest and posttest data to conduct meaningful analyses on the clinical significance and OR videos. Telephone interview participants (n=18) thought the videos' use of animation, narration, and plain language was appropriate for people with different levels of understanding and learning styles. Participants felt that by increasing their understanding of research evidence, they could develop better interventions and design evaluations to measure the impact of public health initiatives.

Conclusions

Overall, the results of the evaluation showed that watching the videos resulted in an increase in knowledge, and participants had an overall positive experience with the URE videos. With increased competence in using the best available evidence, professionals are empowered to contribute to decisions that can improve health outcomes of communities.

SUBMITTER: Chan L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5639207 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How the "Understanding Research Evidence" Web-Based Video Series From the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools Contributes to Public Health Capacity to Practice Evidence-Informed Decision Making: Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

Chan Linda L Mackintosh Jeannie J Dobbins Maureen M

Journal of medical Internet research 20170928 9

<h4>Background</h4>The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) offers workshops and webinars to build public health capacity for evidence-informed decision-making. Despite positive feedback for NCCMT workshops and resources, NCCMT users found key terms used in research papers difficult to understand. The Understanding Research Evidence (URE) videos use plain language, cartoon visuals, and public health examples to explain complex research concepts. The videos are posted on th ...[more]

PMID: 28958986

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:This article is the Introduction to a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Knowing how to find and use research evidence can help policymakers and those who support them to do their jobs better and more efficiently. Each article in this series presents a proposed tool that can be used by those involved in finding and using research evidence to support evidence-informed health policymaking. The series addresses four broad areas: 1. Supporting evidence-informed policymaking 2. Identifying needs for research evidence in relation to three steps in policymaking processes, namely problem clarification, options framing, and implementation planning 3. Finding and assessing both systematic reviews and other types of evidence to inform these steps, and 4. Going from research evidence to decisions. Each article begins with between one and three typical scenarios relating to the topic. These scenarios are designed to help readers decide on the level of detail relevant to them when applying the tools described. Most articles in this series are structured using a set of questions that guide readers through the proposed tools and show how to undertake activities to support evidence-informed policymaking efficiently and effectively. These activities include, for example, using research evidence to clarify problems, assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review about the effects of options selected to address problems, organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking, and planning policy monitoring and evaluation. In several articles, the set of questions presented offers more general guidance on how to support evidence-informed policymaking. Additional information resources are listed and described in every article. The evaluation of ways to support evidence-informed health policymaking is a developing field and feedback about how to improve the series is welcome.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Health professionals require a unique set of knowledge and skills in order to meet increasing expectations to use research evidence to inform practice and policy decisions. They need to be able to find, access, interpret, and apply the best available research evidence, along with information about patient preferences, clinical expertise, and the clinical context and resources, to such decisions. This study determined preferences for continuing education following an intensive educational workshop and evaluated the impact of the workshop on evidence informed decision making (EIDM) knowledge, skills, and behaviours. METHODS: An explanatory mixed methods, longitudinal study design was implemented among a convenience sample of various health care professionals attending the workshop. EIDM knowledge, skills, and behaviours were quantitatively measured at baseline and six month follow-up, with EIDM knowledge and skills measured additionally immediately following the educational workshop (post-test measurement). To determine participants preferences for continuing education, data were collected using quantitative survey (post-test measurement) and qualitative (individual telephone interviews after six-month follow-up) methods. RESULTS: EIDM knowledge and skills increased significantly from baseline to immediately following the intervention [5.6, 95% CI (3.7, 7.4), P < 0.001] and from baseline to six-month follow-up [3.7, 95% CI (2.1, 5.3), P < 0.001], with a significant decrease from immediately following the intervention to six-month follow-up [-1.9, 95% CI (-3.5, -0.3), P 0.018]. EIDM behaviours increased, but not significantly, from baseline to six-month follow-up [1.7, 95% CI (-0.3, 3.8), P 0.095]. At baseline and six-month follow-up there was a weak, non-significant positive correlation between EIDM knowledge and skills and EIDM behaviours (r = 0.29, P 0.069 and r = 0.24, P 0.136, respectively). Over time there was a shift in preferences for timing and frequency of online continuing education strategies. Willingness to participate in continuing education, however, remained evident. CONCLUSIONS: An intensive educational workshop shows promise for increasing EIDM knowledge and skills. Increasing EIDM knowledge and skills may promote the capacity of health professionals to use research evidence when making practice and policy decisions and, in turn, lead to positive patient outcomes.

Dataset Information

How the "Understanding Research Evidence" Web-Based Video Series From the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools Contributes to Public Health Capacity to Practice Evidence-Informed Decision Making: Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

How the "Understanding Research Evidence" Web-Based Video Series From the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools Contributes to Public Health Capacity to Practice Evidence-Informed Decision Making: Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets