Dataset Information

Application of Big Data to Support Evidence-Based Public Health Policy Decision-Making for Hearing.

ABSTRACT: Ideally, public health policies are formulated from scientific data; however, policy-specific data are often unavailable. Big data can generate ecologically-valid, high-quality scientific evidence, and therefore has the potential to change how public health policies are formulated. Here, we discuss the use of big data for developing evidence-based hearing health policies, using data collected and analyzed with a research prototype of a data repository known as EVOTION (EVidence-based management of hearing impairments: public health pOlicy-making based on fusing big data analytics and simulaTION), to illustrate our points. Data in the repository consist of audiometric clinical data, prospective real-world data collected from hearing aids and an app, and responses to questionnaires collected for research purposes. To date, we have used the platform and a synthetic dataset to model the estimated risk of noise-induced hearing loss and have shown novel evidence of ways in which external factors influence hearing aid usage patterns. We contend that this research prototype data repository illustrates the value of using big data for policy-making by providing high-quality evidence that could be used to formulate and evaluate the impact of hearing health care policies.

SUBMITTER: Saunders GH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7676484 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep/Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Application of Big Data to Support Evidence-Based Public Health Policy Decision-Making for Hearing.

Saunders Gabrielle H GH Christensen Jeppe H JH Gutenberg Johanna J Pontoppidan Niels H NH Smith Andrew A Spanoudakis George G Bamiou Doris-Eva DE

Ear and hearing 20200901 5

Ideally, public health policies are formulated from scientific data; however, policy-specific data are often unavailable. Big data can generate ecologically-valid, high-quality scientific evidence, and therefore has the potential to change how public health policies are formulated. Here, we discuss the use of big data for developing evidence-based hearing health policies, using data collected and analyzed with a research prototype of a data repository known as EVOTION (EVidence-based management ...[more]

PMID: 31985536

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The holistic management of hearing loss (HL) requires an understanding of factors that predict hearing aid (HA) use and benefit beyond the acoustics of listening environments. Although several predictors have been identified, no study has explored the role of audiological, cognitive, behavioural and physiological data nor has any study collected real-time HA data. This study will collect 'big data', including retrospective HA logging data, prospective clinical data and real-time data via smart HAs, a mobile application and biosensors. The main objective is to enable the validation of the EVOTION platform as a public health policy-making tool for HL. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This will be a big data international multicentre study consisting of retrospective and prospective data collection. Existing data from approximately 35?000?HA users will be extracted from clinical repositories in the UK and Denmark. For the prospective data collection, 1260?HA candidates will be recruited across four clinics in the UK and Greece. Participants will complete a battery of audiological and other assessments (measures of patient-reported HA benefit, mood, cognition, quality of life). Patients will be offered smart HAs and a mobile phone application and a subset will also be given wearable biosensors, to enable the collection of dynamic real-life HA usage data. Big data analytics will be used to detect correlations between contextualised HA usage and effectiveness, and different factors and comorbidities affecting HL, with a view to informing public health decision-making. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was received from the London South East Research Ethics Committee (17/LO/0789), the Hippokrateion Hospital Ethics Committee (1847) and the Athens Medical Center's Ethics Committee (KM140670). Results will be disseminated through national and international events in Greece and the UK, scientific journals, newsletters, magazines and social media. Target audiences include HA users, clinicians, policy-makers and the general public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03316287; Pre-results.

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:BACKGROUND:While systematic review (SR) methods are gaining traction as a method for providing a reliable summary of existing evidence for health risks posed by exposure to chemical substances, it is becoming clear that their value is restricted to a specific range of risk management scenarios - in particular, those which can be addressed with tightly focused questions and can accommodate the time and resource requirements of a systematic evidence synthesis. METHODS:The concept of a systematic evidence map (SEM) is defined and contrasted to the function and limitations of systematic review (SR) in the context of risk management decision-making. The potential for SEMs to facilitate evidence-based decision-making are explored using a hypothetical example in risk management priority-setting. The potential role of SEMs in reference to broader risk management workflows is characterised. RESULTS:SEMs are databases of systematically gathered research which characterise broad features of the evidence base. Although not intended to substitute for the evidence synthesis element of systematic reviews, SEMs provide a comprehensive, queryable summary of a large body of policy relevant research. They provide an evidence-based approach to characterising the extent of available evidence and support forward looking predictions or trendspotting in the chemical risk sciences. In particular, SEMs facilitate the identification of related bodies of decision critical chemical risk information which could be further analysed using SR methods, and highlight gaps in the evidence which could be addressed with additional primary studies to reduce uncertainties in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:SEMs have strong and growing potential as a high value tool in resource efficient use of existing research in chemical risk management. They can be used as a critical precursor to efficient deployment of high quality SR methods for characterising chemical health risks. Furthermore, SEMs have potential, at a large scale, to support the sort of evidence summarisation and surveillance methods which would greatly increase the resource efficiency, transparency and effectiveness of regulatory initiatives such as EU REACH and US TSCA.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ensuring health policies are informed by evidence still remains a challenge despite efforts devoted to this aim. Several tools and approaches aimed at fostering evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) have been developed, yet there is a lack of availability of indicators specifically devoted to assess and support EIPM. The present study aims to overcome this by building a set of measurable indicators for EIPM intended to infer if and to what extent health-related policies are, or are expected to be, evidence-informed for the purposes of policy planning as well as formative and summative evaluations. METHODS:The indicators for EIPM were developed and validated at international level by means of a two-round internet-based Delphi study conducted within the European project 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA). A total of 82 researchers and policy-makers from the six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom) involved in the project and international organisations were asked to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of an initial set of 23 indicators developed by REPOPA researchers on the basis of literature and knowledge gathered from the previous phases of the project, and to propose new indicators. RESULTS:The first Delphi round led to the validation of 14 initial indicators and to the development of 8 additional indicators based on panellists' suggestions; the second round led to the validation of a further 11 indicators, including 6 proposed by panellists, and to the rejection of 6 indicators. A total of 25 indicators were validated, covering EIPM issues related to human resources, documentation, participation and monitoring, and stressing different levels of knowledge exchange and involvement of researchers and other stakeholders in policy development and evaluation. CONCLUSION:The study overcame the lack of availability of indicators to assess if and to what extent policies are realised in an evidence-informed manner thanks to the active contribution of researchers and policy-makers. These indicators are intended to become a shared resource usable by policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders, with a crucial impact on fostering the development of policies informed by evidence.

Dataset Information

Application of Big Data to Support Evidence-Based Public Health Policy Decision-Making for Hearing.

Publications

Application of Big Data to Support Evidence-Based Public Health Policy Decision-Making for Hearing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure