Dataset Information

Assessing Organizational Supports for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Public Health Departments in the United States: Development and Psychometric Properties of a New Measure.

ABSTRACT: CONTEXT:Fostering evidence-based decision making (EBDM) within local public health departments and among local health department (LHD) practitioners is crucial for the successful translation of research into public health practice to prevent and control chronic disease. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to identify organizational supports for EBDM within LHDs and determine psychometric properties of a measure of organizational supports for EBDM in LHDs. DESIGN:Cross-sectional, observation study. SETTING:Local public health departments in the United States. PARTICIPANTS:Local health department practitioners (N = 376) across the United States participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Local health department practitioners completed a survey containing 27 items about organizational supports for EBDM. Most items were adapted from previously developed surveys, and input from researchers and practitioners guided survey development. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test and refine the psychometric properties of the measure. RESULTS:The final solution included 6 factors of 22 items: awareness of EBDM (3 items), capacity for EBDM (7 items), resources availability (3 items), evaluation capacity (3 items), EBDM climate cultivation (3 items), and partnerships to support EBDM (3 items). This factor solution achieved acceptable fit (eg, Comparative Fit Index = 0.965). Logistic regression models showed positive relationships between the 6 factors and the number of evidence-based interventions delivered. CONCLUSIONS:This study identified important organizational supports for EBDM within LHDs. Results of this study can be used to understand and enhance organizational processes and structures to support EBDM to improve LHD performance and population health. Strong measures are important for understanding how LHDs support EBDM, evaluating interventions to improve LHD capacity, and to guide programmatic and policy efforts within LHDs.

SUBMITTER: Mazzucca S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6614014 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep/Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing Organizational Supports for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Public Health Departments in the United States: Development and Psychometric Properties of a New Measure.

Mazzucca Stephanie S Parks Renee G RG Tabak Rachel G RG Allen Peg P Dobbins Maureen M Stamatakis Katherine A KA Brownson Ross C RC

Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP 20190901 5

<h4>Context</h4>Fostering evidence-based decision making (EBDM) within local public health departments and among local health department (LHD) practitioners is crucial for the successful translation of research into public health practice to prevent and control chronic disease.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to identify organizational supports for EBDM within LHDs and determine psychometric properties of a measure of organizational supports for EBDM in LHDs.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-s ...[more]

PMID: 31348160

Similar Datasets

Project description:Organizational readiness for change in healthcare settings is an important factor in successful implementation of new policies, programs, and practices. However, research on the topic is hindered by the absence of a brief, reliable, and valid measure. Until such a measure is developed, we cannot advance scientific knowledge about readiness or provide evidence-based guidance to organizational leaders about how to increase readiness. This article presents results of a psychometric assessment of a new measure called Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC), which we developed based on Weiner's theory of organizational readiness for change.We conducted four studies to assess the psychometric properties of ORIC. In study one, we assessed the content adequacy of the new measure using quantitative methods. In study two, we examined the measure's factor structure and reliability in a laboratory simulation. In study three, we assessed the reliability and validity of an organization-level measure of readiness based on aggregated individual-level data from study two. In study four, we conducted a small field study utilizing the same analytic methods as in study three.Content adequacy assessment indicated that the items developed to measure change commitment and change efficacy reflected the theoretical content of these two facets of organizational readiness and distinguished the facets from hypothesized determinants of readiness. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in the lab and field studies revealed two correlated factors, as expected, with good model fit and high item loadings. Reliability analysis in the lab and field studies showed high inter-item consistency for the resulting individual-level scales for change commitment and change efficacy. Inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement statistics supported the aggregation of individual level readiness perceptions to the organizational level of analysis.This article provides evidence in support of the ORIC measure. We believe this measure will enable testing of theories about determinants and consequences of organizational readiness and, ultimately, assist healthcare leaders to reduce the number of health organization change efforts that do not achieve desired benefits. Although ORIC shows promise, further assessment is needed to test for convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

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: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.

Project description:It has widely been accepted that aggregating group-level decisions is superior to individual decisions. As compared to individuals, groups tend to show a decision advantage in their response accuracy. However, there has been a lack of research exploring whether group decisions are more efficient than individual decisions with a faster information-processing speed. To investigate the relationship between accuracy and response time (RT) in group decision-making, we applied systems' factorial technology, developed by Townsend and Nozawa (Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39, 321-359, 1995) and regarded as a theory-driven methodology, to study the information-processing properties. More specifically, we measured the workload capacity CAND(t), which only considers the correct responses, and the assessment function of capacity AAND(t), which considers the speed-accuracy trade-off, to make a strong inference about the system-level processing efficiency. A two-interval, forced-choice oddball detection task, where participants had to detect which interval contains an odd target, was conducted in Experiment 1. Then, in Experiment 2, a yes/no Gabor detection task was adopted, where participants had to detect the presence of a Gabor patch. Our results replicated previous findings using the accuracy-based measure: Group detection sensitivity was better than the detection sensitivity of the best individual, especially when the two individuals had similar detection sensitivities. On the other hand, both workload capacity measures, CAND(t) and AAND(t), showed evidence of supercapacity processing, thus suggesting a collective benefit. The ordered relationship between accuracy-based and RT-based collective benefit was limited to the AAND(t) of the correct and fast responses, which may help uncover the processing mechanism behind collective benefits. Our results suggested that AAND(t), which combines both accuracy and RT into inferences, can be regarded as a novel and diagnostic tool for studying the group decision-making process.

Project description:BackgroundEthical decision-making confidence develops from clinical expertise and is a core competency for nurse leaders. No tool exists to measure confidence levels in nurse leaders based upon an ethical decision-making framework.AimsThe objective of this research was to compare ethical decision-making among nurse leaders in the U.S. and three German-speaking countries in Europe by developing and testing a newly constructed Ethical Decision-Making Confidence (EDMC) scale.MethodsThe cross-sectional survey included 18 theory-derived questions on ethical decision-making confidence which were used to develop the scale.ParticipantsA convenience sample of nurse leaders from the U.S. and three German-speaking countries in Europe who self-identified as holding a leadership position.Ethical considerationsEthical approval was given by the IRB Board of a U.S. university. Participation in the survey implied voluntary consent.ResultsThe scale's item structure dimensionality and subscale's reliability were analyzed and compared between nurse leaders from all four countries. A principal component analysis (PCA) produced a 15-item bi-dimensional EDMC scale yielding a skill-related (9-item) and a behavior-related (6-item) confidence dimension. EDMC subscales showed good-to-excellent internal consistency. In both subscales, U.S. nurse leaders rated their mean EDMC score higher than their German-speaking counterparts in Europe.DiscussionThis exploratory study is the first of its kind to focus on nurse leaders' confidence regarding ethical decision-making in an international context. An overarching factor structure was identified, which is shared by the two samples of nurse leaders and to examine (sub)scales' psychometric properties.ConclusionThis newly developed scale is an effective tool for measuring ethical decision-making confidence in nurse leaders. The promising results of this study should be replicated to ensure validity and reliability of the EDMC scale measuring skill-related and behavior-related concepts and include nurse leaders from various cultural, social, and demographic groups.

Dataset Information

Assessing Organizational Supports for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Public Health Departments in the United States: Development and Psychometric Properties of a New Measure.

Publications

Assessing Organizational Supports for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Local Public Health Departments in the United States: Development and Psychometric Properties of a New Measure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets