Dataset Information

Evidence generation, decision making, and consequent growth in health disparities.

ABSTRACT: Evidence is valuable because it informs decisions to produce better outcomes. However, the same evidence that is complete for some individuals or groups may be incomplete for others, leading to inefficiencies in decision making and growth in disparities in outcomes. Specifically, the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity across some measure of baseline risk, and noisy information about such heterogeneity, can induce self-selection into randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by patients with distributions of baseline risk different from that of the target population. Consequently, average results from RCTs can disproportionately affect the treatment choices of patients with different baseline risks. Using economic models for these sequential processes of RCT enrollment, information generation, and the resulting treatment choice decisions, we show that the dynamic consequences of such information flow and behaviors may lead to growth in disparities in health outcomes across racial and ethnic categories. These disparities arise due to either the differential distribution of risk across those categories at the time RCT results are reported or the different rate of change of baseline risk over time across race and ethnicity, even though the distribution of risk within the RCT matched that of the target population when the RCT was conducted. We provide evidence on how these phenomena may have contributed to the growth in racial disparity in diabetes incidence.

SUBMITTER: Basu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7321972 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence generation, decision making, and consequent growth in health disparities.

Basu Anirban A Gujral Kritee K

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20200608 25

Evidence is valuable because it informs decisions to produce better outcomes. However, the same evidence that is complete for some individuals or groups may be incomplete for others, leading to inefficiencies in decision making and growth in disparities in outcomes. Specifically, the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity across some measure of baseline risk, and noisy information about such heterogeneity, can induce self-selection into randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by patients with dist ...[more]

PMID: 32513684

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: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:ObjectiveTo assess the association between evidence-based decision making, including implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), with accreditation of state health departments through the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB).DesignThis was a cross-sectional, electronic survey of state health department practitioners. We utilized a survey instrument focused on evidence-based public health, de-implementation, and sustainability of public health programs. Survey questions were organized into 6 domains: (1) demographic information; (2) individual-level skills; (3) decision making on programs ending; (4) decision making on programs continuing; (5) organization/agency capacity; and (6) external influences.ParticipantsThe targeted practitioners were randomly selected from the 3000-person membership of National Association of Chronic Disease Directors and program manager lists from key Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-supported programs in cancer and cancer risk factors. The final target audience for the survey totaled 1329 practitioners, representing all 50 states.Main outcome measure(s)The main outcome measures included the strength of association between a state's PHAB accreditation status and variables related to evidence-based public health and use of EBIs that fell within the individual participant skills, organization/agency capacity, and external influences domains.ResultsWe received 643 valid responses (response rate = 48.4%), representing all 50 states, with 35 states being PHAB accredited. There was a statistically significant association between PHAB accreditation and state health department use of quality improvement processes (P = .002), leadership plans to implement EBIs (P = .009), and leadership reactions to EBI implementation issues (P = .004). Respondents from PHAB-accredited states were significantly more likely than participants from nonaccredited states to report greater engagement with legislators and governors regarding EBIs and 14% less likely to report the inappropriate termination of programs in their work unit (P = .05).ConclusionsThe importance of accreditation relates to both internally focused functions and externally focused activities, especially regarding policy-related impact.

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.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence networks facilitate the exchange of information and foster international relationships among researchers and stakeholders. These networks are instrumental in enabling the integration of scientific evidence into decision-making processes. While there is a global emphasis on evidence-based decision-making at policy and organisational levels, there exists a significant gap in our understanding of the most effective activities to exchange scientific knowledge and use it in practice. The objective of this rapid review was to explore the strategies employed by evidence networks to facilitate the translation of evidence into decision-making processes. This review makes a contribution to global health policymaking by mapping the landscape of knowledge translation in this context and identifying the evidence translation activities that evidence networks have found effective.MethodsThe review was guided by standardised techniques for conducting rapid evidence reviews. Document searching was based on a phased approach, commencing with a comprehensive initial search strategy and progressively refining it with each subsequent search iterations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed.ResultsThe review identified 143 articles, after screening 1135 articles. Out of these, 35 articles were included in the review. The studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with the majority originating from the United States (n = 14), followed by Canada (n = 5), Sweden (n = 2), and various other single locations (n = 14). These studies presented a varied set of implementation strategies such as research-related activities, the creation of teams/task forces/partnerships, meetings/consultations, mobilising/working with communities, influencing policy, activity evaluation, training, trust-building, and regular meetings, as well as community-academic-policymaker engagement.ConclusionsEvidence networks play a crucial role in developing, sharing, and implementing high-quality research for policy. These networks face challenges like coordinating diverse stakeholders, international collaboration, language barriers, research consistency, knowledge dissemination, capacity building, evaluation, and funding. To enhance their impact, sharing network efforts with wider audiences, including local, national, and international agencies, is essential for evidence-based decision-making to shape evidence-informed policies and programmes effectively.

Dataset Information

Evidence generation, decision making, and consequent growth in health disparities.

Publications

Evidence generation, decision making, and consequent growth in health disparities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets