Defining 'evidence' in public health: a survey of policymakers' uses and preferences

Barriers and facilitators to dissemination of non-communicable diseases research: a mixed studies systematic review

Background

There is a large number of research studies about the prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCD), with findings taking several years to be translated into practice. One reason for this lack of translation is a limited understanding of how to best disseminate NCD research findings to user-groups in a way that is salient and useful. An understanding of barriers and facilitators to dissemination is key to informing the development of strategies to increase dissemination. Therefore, this review aims to identify and synthesise the barriers and facilitators to dissemination of NCD research findings.

Methods

A mixed studies systematic review was performed following JBI (formerly known as Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology. The search included articles from January 2000 until May 2021. We conducted a comprehensive search of bibliographic and grey literature of five databases to identify eligible studies. Studies were included if they involved end-users of public health research that were decision-makers in their setting and examined barriers/facilitators to disseminating research findings. Two pairs of reviewers mapped data from included studies against the Framework of Knowledge Translation (FKT) and used a convergent approach to synthesise the data.

Results

The database search yielded 27,192 reports. Following screening and full text review, 15 studies (ten qualitative, one quantitative and four mixed methods) were included. Studies were conducted in 12 mostly high-income countries, with a total of 871 participants. We identified 12 barriers and 14 facilitators mapped to five elements of the FKT. Barriers related to: (i) the user-group (n = 3) such as not perceiving health as important and (ii) the dissemination strategies (n = 3) such as lack of understanding of content of guidelines. Several facilitators related to dissemination strategies (n = 5) such as using different channels of communication. Facilitators also related to the user-group (n = 4) such as the user-groups' interest in health and research.

Conclusion

Researchers and government organisations should consider these factors when identifying ways to disseminate research findings to decision-maker audiences. Future research should aim to build the evidence base on different strategies to overcome these barriers.

Systematic review registration

The protocol of this review was deposited in Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5QSGD).

Dissemination of public health research evidence and guidelines to Australian Early Childhood Education and Care staff: Views about source, content and format

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Effective dissemination of public health research and evidence-based guidelines to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) staff is critical for promoting research transfer and uptake and achieving positive outcomes for children.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted during August 2021 to March 2022, with a sub-sample of Australian ECEC services participating in a larger survey completed online and via Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview. Survey items assessed: influential source for receiving research, type of content that would influence decisions to adopt research and preferred formats for receiving research.

RESULTS

Overall, 993 service managers or staff from 1984 (50.0%) invited and eligible services completed the larger survey. Of these, 463 randomly allocated services (46.7%) had staff complete the dissemination items. The Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority, ECEC agencies and Government Departments were most frequently selected as influential sources of research evidence. Staff were most interested in content providing evidence-based recommendations for future actions and descriptions of health issues addressed. Workshops or conferences and webinars were the preferred format for receiving research.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the importance of tailoring dissemination strategies to meet ECEC staff needs and engaging influential sources to disseminate research evidence. SO WHAT?: Understanding dissemination preferences of ECEC staff is crucial for supporting uptake of evidence-based health promotion in this setting. By developing tailored strategies based on ECEC preferences, research transfer and evidence-based decision making can be supported more effectively. These findings contribute to bridging the evidence-practice gap and improving the quality of care and health outcomes for children in ECEC settings.

Research outcomes informing the selection of public health interventions and strategies to implement them: A cross-sectional survey of Australian policy-maker and practitioner preferences

BACKGROUND

A key role of public health policy-makers and practitioners is to ensure beneficial interventions are implemented effectively enough to yield improvements in public health. The use of evidence to guide public health decision-making to achieve this is recommended. However, few studies have examined the relative value, as reported by policy-makers and practitioners, of different broad research outcomes (that is, measures of cost, acceptability, and effectiveness). To guide the conduct of research and better inform public health policy and practice, this study aimed at describing the research outcomes that Australian policy-makers and practitioners consider important for their decision-making when selecting: (a) public health interventions; (b) strategies to support their implementation; and (c) to assess the differences in research outcome preferences between policy-makers and practitioners.

METHOD

An online value-weighting survey was conducted with Australian public health policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention. Participants were presented with a list of research outcomes and were asked to select up to five they considered most critical to their decision-making. They then allocated 100 points across these - allocating more points to outcomes perceived as more important. Outcome lists were derived from a review and consolidation of evaluation and outcome frameworks in the fields of public health knowledge translation and implementation. We used descriptive statistics to report relative preferences overall and for policy-makers and practitioners separately.

RESULTS

Of the 186 participants; 90 primarily identified as policy-makers and 96 as public health prevention practitioners. Overall, research outcomes of effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability were identified as the four most important outcomes when considering either interventions or strategies to implement them. Scores were similar for most outcomes between policy-makers and practitioners.

CONCLUSION

For Australian policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention, outcomes related to effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability appear particularly important to their decisions about the interventions they select and the strategies they employ to implement them. The findings suggest researchers should seek to meet these information needs and prioritize the inclusion of such outcomes in their research and dissemination activities. The extent to which these outcomes are critical to informing the decision of policy-makers and practitioners working in other jurisdictions or contexts warrants further investigation.

Understanding Stakeholder Dissemination Preferences for an Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Injury Surveillance System

Researchers and epidemiologists are working to improve the capture of agriculture, forestry, and fishing (AgFF) injuries in a variety of ways. A critical component of any surveillance system is the dissemination of information. The purpose of this paper is to report on a survey conducted with AgFF injury surveillance stakeholders to understand preferred dissemination strategies. The survey was distributed using REDCap via web link to organizational stakeholders, which included advisory board members, safety trainers, industry managers and workers, and research collaborators. In total, there were 75 respondents (21% response rate). Occupation and industry influenced preference in update methods. Regarding the length and breadth of updates, 63% of respondents prefer reports (one to five pages), followed by 57% desiring a summary (less than one page), while only 24% wanted a detailed analysis. Social media and news preferences were also different among stakeholders. Surveillance data were desired for 1) trend analysis, 2) tailoring activities and solutions for education, training, outreach and interventions and 3) for research purposes such as grant proposals and evaluation. The dissemination of injury surveillance data should be tailored to the intended audience. Greater attention needs to be paid to the ways in which we share our findings.

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences

BACKGROUND

Understanding the views of policy-makers and practitioners regarding how best to communicate research evidence is important to support research use in their decision-making.

AIM

To quantify and describe public health policy-makers and practitioners' views regarding the source, content and form of messages describing public health research findings to inform their decision-making. We also sought to examine differences in preferences between public health policy-makers and practitioners.

METHODS

A cross sectional, value-weighting survey of policy-makers and practitioners was conducted. Participants were asked to allocate a proportion of 100 points across different (i) sources of research evidence, (ii) message content and (iii) the form in which evidence is presented. Points were allocated based on their rating of influence, usefulness and preference when making decisions about health policy or practice.

RESULTS

A total of 186 survey responses were received from 90 policy-makers and 96 practitioners. Researchers and government department agencies were the most influential source of research evidence based on mean allocation of points, followed by knowledge brokers, professional peers and associations. Mean point allocation for perceived usefulness of message content was highest for simple summary of key findings and implications, and then evidence-based recommendations and data and statistical summaries. Finally, based on mean scores, policy-makers and practitioners preferred to receive research evidence in the form of peer-reviewed publications, reports, evidence briefs and plain language summaries. There were few differences in scores between policy-makers and practitioners across source, message content or form assessments or those with experience in different behavioural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings should provide a basis for the future development and optimization of dissemination strategies to this important stakeholder group.

Dissemination of knowledge from Cochrane Public Health reviews: a bibliographic study

BACKGROUND

Appropriate dissemination of public health evidence is of high importance to ensure that scientific knowledge reaches potential stakeholders and relevant population groups. A wide distrust towards science and its findings indicates that communication thereof remains below its potential. Cochrane Public Health provides an important source of high-quality scientific evidence in the field of public health via reviews with systematic methodology. The aims of this study were to identify (1) dissemination strategies and (2) stakeholders of Cochrane Public Health reviews.

METHODS

This is a bibliographic study with a cross-sectional design. All 68 records (reviews or review protocols) listed on the Cochrane Public Health website ( https://ph.cochrane.org/cph-reviews-and-topics ) up to 8 March 2022 were included. Record characteristics, dissemination strategies, and potential stakeholder details were coded by one author, and 10% of records were checked by another author. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics or narratively into common themes.

RESULTS

The 68 records were published between 2010 and 2022 and included 15 review protocols and 53 reviews with systematic methodology (46 systematic, 6 rapid, and 1 scoping review). All 53 reviews were disseminated via open-access plain language summaries (PLS) in English with translations into 3-13 other languages. Other dissemination strategies included information on Cochrane websites (e.g., clinical answers or guidelines) available for 41/53 reviews and Cochrane news or blogs that mentioned 19/53 reviews. Overall, 23/68 records mentioned the actual stakeholder involvement in review production, protocol development, or formulation of dissemination plans. The potential stakeholders included several highly diverse groups, such as the general population or specific communities (e.g., racial minority groups), policy and decision makers, and researchers and professionals in various fields (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, education, or care).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that Cochrane Public Health reviews are disseminated predominantly via PLS in different languages and via review information on Cochrane websites. Planned dissemination strategies were rarely reported although actual stakeholders were involved in the planning and production of some reviews. The relevance of Cochrane Public Health reviews for non-academic stakeholders and the general population highlights the need for the dissemination of evidence from such reviews beyond academia.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ga9pt/ ).

Evidence use in the UK's COVID-19 Free School Meals Policy: a thematic content analysis

Free School Meals (FSM) are a well-recognised intervention for tackling food insecurity among school children. National school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic meant that there was a need to rapidly adapt the delivery of FSM. A range of food-assistance policies were implemented, but it is not clear if they were evidence-based. This study aimed to determine the transparency of evidence use and identify other competing influences in the UK's FSM policy decisions. Thematic content analysis was used to review 50 publicly available policy documents and debate transcripts on FSM policy published between March 2020-2021. This period covered the first national school closures (March 2020-July 2020), school holidays and the second national school closures (January 2021- March 2021). The Evidence Transparency Framework was used to assess the transparency of evidence use in policy documents. We found that overall transparency of evidence use was poor but was better for the Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme. The Government showed preference for replacing FSM with food parcels, rather than more agentic modes of food assistance such as cash-vouchers. This preference appeared to be closely aligned with ideological views on the welfare state. With an absence of evidence, value-based reasoning took precedent and was polarised by social media. This paper highlights the need for a formal review into FSM, one which includes a comparison of low and high agentic food assistance policies. Such a review would address the evidence gap, improve food assistance policy, and aid policymakers in future periods of uncertainty.

Understanding tailoring to support the implementation of evidence-based interventions in healthcare: The CUSTOMISE research programme protocol

Although there are effective evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to prevent, treat and coordinate care for chronic conditions they may not be adopted widely and when adopted, implementation challenges can limit their impact.  Implementation strategies are "methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of a clinical program or practice". There is some evidence to suggest that to be more effective,  strategies should be tailored; that is, selected and designed to address specific determinants which may influence implementation in a given context. Despite the growing popularity of tailoring the concept is ill-defined, and the way in which tailoring is applied can vary across studies or lack detail when reported. There has been less focus on the part of tailoring where stakeholders prioritise determinants and select strategies, and the way in which theory, evidence and stakeholders' perspectives should be combined to make decisions during the process. Typically, tailoring is evaluated based on the effectiveness of the tailored strategy, we do not have a clear sense of the mechanisms through which tailoring works, or how to measure the "success" of the tailoring process. We lack an understanding of how stakeholders can be involved effectively in tailoring and the influence of different approaches on the outcome of tailoring. Our research programme, CUSTOMISE (Comparing and Understanding Tailoring Methods for Implementation Strategies in healthcare) will address some of these outstanding questions and generate evidence on  the feasibility, acceptability, and efficiency of different tailoring approaches, and build capacity in implementation science in Ireland, developing and delivering training and supports for, and network of, researchers and implementation practitioners. The evidence generated across the studies conducted as part of CUSTOMISE will bring greater clarity, consistency, coherence, and transparency to tailoring, a key process in implementation science.

Dissemination of Evidence by Cochrane Public Health Europe in German-Speaking Countries: An Online Stakeholder Survey

Objectives: To investigate the reach and impact of "Infomails", email summaries of Cochrane reviews in German, regularly disseminated by Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE) to stakeholders in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Methods: We analysed email campaign reports from 15 Infomails delivered until November 2020. Furthermore, we invited all previous Infomail recipients to participate in an online survey on the impact and perceptions regarding our Infomails in November 2020. We analysed the results using descriptive statistics. Results: The Infomails' open rate ranged from 10.9% to 39.3% (median 26.0%), and the median click rate on the embedded links was 28.0% (range 8.6-53.8%), highest for nutrition and prevention topics. Out of 1259 recipients, 267 (21.2%) completed our survey. Infomails were most used in discussions, writing reports or statements, for policy or strategy development or programme or guideline development. Persons who remembered receiving Infomails rated them as useful, comprehensible or informative. Conclusion: Infomails summarising recent Cochrane reviews were considered useful for the daily work of public health stakeholders in German-speaking countries. Regular targeted messaging may increase the perceived usefulness.

Complexities and Context of Scaling Up: A Qualitative Study of Stakeholder Perspectives of Scaling Physical Activity and Nutrition Interventions in Australia

Background

Scaling up population health interventions is a context-orientated, dynamic and multi-stakeholder process; understanding its influences is essential to enhance future scaling efforts. Using physical activity and nutrition interventions in Australia as case examples, the aim of this paper is to identify core influences involved in scaling up physical activity and nutrition interventions, and how these may differ by context and stakeholder.

Methods

A qualitative study involving semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals representing academic, government and non-government organizations with involvement in scaling up state and national physical activity and nutrition interventions. Interview questions were derived from the WHO report “20 Questions for Developing a Scaling up Case Study”, and mapped against four key principles and five core areas in the WHO ExpandNet framework for scaling up: (1) The innovation; (2) User organization; (3) Environment; (4) Resource team and; (5) Scale up strategy. Data were analyzed thematically.

Results

Nineteen interviews were conducted (government = 3; non-government = 5; and academic = 11 sectors) involving eight scaled up interventions, targeting nutrition (n = 2), physical activity (n = 1) or a combination (n = 5). Most themes aligned to the “Environment”, including: (i) political (e.g., personal agendas); (ii) social (e.g., lack of urgency); and (iii) sector/workforce (e.g., scale up accountability) factors. Themes relating to “Scale up strategy” (e.g., flexibility and evaluation transparency) were next most commonly occurring. Whilst themes were broadly consistent across participants, government participants had a more policy-oriented perspective on the scale up process. Academics discussed a tension between the generation and use of evidence, and the influence of political climates/interest on scale up decisions.

Conclusion

Attributes of the “Environment” and “Scale up strategy” consistently featured as major influences on successful outcomes, while the role of evidence differed greatly between participant groups. A multisector scale up strategy for future interventions may enable the complexities of environmental and political contexts to be incorporated into scale up planning.

Public Compliance Matters in Evidence-Based Public Health Policy: Evidence from Evaluating Social Distancing in the First Wave of COVID-19

When the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic first spread, governments could implement a wide range of measures to tackle the outbreaks. Conventional wisdom holds that public health policy should be made on the basis of empirical demonstrations, while little research has probed on how to safeguard the expected policy utility in the case of evidence shortage on novel contagious diseases. In particular, the fight against COVID-19 cannot succeed without public compliance as well as the support of people who have not tested positive. Based on the data from the first wave of COVID-19, by using a random effect estimator, fixed effect method, and hierarchical technique, we specified the efficiency of particular social distancing policies by contextualizing multiple factors. We found that adopting gathering restrictions decreased new case growth but were conditional on its interaction with population density, while mitigation effects constantly corresponded to policy magnitude in a given time; for which the effective patterns varied from three days to sixty days. Overall, policies encouraging social distancing exerted a positive effect on mitigating the first wave of COVID-19. Both the enforcing duration and public compliance constrained the expected impact of nonpharmaceutical intervention according to degrees of policy level. These findings suggest that, when evidence is incomplete, the effectiveness of public health crisis management depends on the combination of policy appropriateness and, accordingly, public compliance.

Assessing the scalability of an integrated falls prevention service for community-dwelling older people: a mixed methods study

Background

There is growing acknowledgement of the need for a phased approach to scaling up health interventions, beginning with an assessment of ‘scalability’, that is, the capacity of an individual intervention to be scaled up. This study aims to assess the scalability of a multi-component integrated falls prevention service for community-dwelling older people and to examine the applicability of the Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool (ISAT). The ISAT consists of 10 domains for consideration when determining the scalability of an intervention, and each domain comprises a series of questions aimed at examining readiness for scale-up.

Methods

Multiple methods were used sequentially as recommended by the ISAT: a review of policy documents, results from a service evaluation and falls-related literature; one-to-one interviews (n = 11) with key stakeholders involved in management and oversight of the service; and a follow-up online questionnaire (n = 10) with stakeholders to rate scalability and provide further feedback on reasons for their scores.

Results

Three of the ISAT domains were rated highly by the participants. Analysis of the qualitative feedback and documents indicated that the issue of falls prevention among older people was of sufficient priority to warrant scale-up of the service and that the service aligned with national health policy priorities. Some participants also noted that benefits of the service could potentially outweigh costs through reduced hospital admissions and serious injuries such as hip fracture. The remaining domains received a moderate score from participants, however, indicating considerable barriers to scale-up. In the qualitative feedback, barriers identified included the perceived need for more healthcare staff to deliver components of the service, for additional infrastructure such as adequate room space, and for an integrated electronic patient management system linking primary and secondary care and to prevent duplication of services.

Conclusions

Plans to scale up the service are currently under review given the practical barriers that need to be addressed. The ISAT provides a systematic and structured framework for examining the scalability of this multi-component falls prevention intervention, although the iterative nature of the process and detailed and technical nature of its questions require considerable time and knowledge of the service to complete.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-021-02717-6.

Decision-making for active living infrastructure in new communities: a qualitative study in England

BACKGROUND

Urban design can influence population levels of physical activity and subsequent health impacts. This qualitative study investigates local level decision-making for 'active living' infrastructure (ALI)-walking and cycling infrastructure and open spaces in new communities.

METHODS

Thirty-five semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, and limited ethnographic observations, were conducted with local government and private sector stakeholders including urban and transport planners, public health practitioners, elected councillors and developers. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Public health practitioners in local government could act as knowledge brokers and leaders to motivate non-health stakeholders such as urban and transport planners to consider health when designing and building new communities. They needed to engage at the earliest stages and be adequately resourced to build relationships across sectors, supporting non-health outcomes such as tackling congestion, which often had greater political traction. 'Evidence' for decision-making identified problems (going beyond health), informed solutions, and also justified decisions post hoc, although case study examples were not always convincing if not considered contextually relevant.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a conceptual model with three factors needed to bridge the gap between evidence and ALI being built: influential public health practitioners; supportive policies in non-health sectors; and adequate resources.

Effects of messaging on public support for drug consumption rooms in scotland, UK

BACKGROUND

There is evidence to suggest that medically supervised drug consumption rooms (DCRs) may form part of responses to reduce drug-related harm. Although DCRs have been established globally, they are perceived by some to be a controversial approach in the UK, and Government has repeatedly rejected proposals to establish one in Glasgow, Scotland. As public support is an important component of policy development and enactment, we sought to investigate the effects of different types of message framing on public support for DCR.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional online study with a randomised design, conducted with a nationally representative sample. Participants were randomised to one of six message conditions comprising combinations of four components. All conditions included i) a basic description of a DCR, and conditions included combinations of ii) factual information; iii) pre-emptive refutation of common public concerns about DCR; and/or iv) a sympathetic narrative describing a mother whose son died from a heroin overdose. After reading each message, participants completed a bespoke measure assessing support for DCR. Data were analysed using ANCOVA.

RESULTS

Complete data were obtained from 1591 participants (50.3% Female; mean age 44.9 ± 16.1 years). Compared to reading a basic description of DCR alone, there was greater support for DCR in participants receiving the refutation (p < .001); sympathetic + factual (p < .05); and sympathetic + factual + refutation (p < .001) message conditions. Presenting factual or sympathetic messages alone were not associated with increased support.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that public support for DCRs is not improved through communication of factual statements outlining potential benefits of the intervention alone. Advocates seeking to foster public support, and thus influence policy making, should also consider communication campaigns that address common concerns that the public might have about DCRs, and present the intervention in relation to potential benefits that they hold for people indirectly affected by drug-related harm.

Use and value of systematic reviews in English local authority public health: a qualitative study

Background

Responsibility for public health in England transferred from the National Health Service to local authorities in 2013, representing a different decision-making environment. Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence for clinical decision-making but little is known about their use in local government public health. This study aimed to explore the extent to which public health decision-makers in local authorities engage with systematic reviews and how they do so.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior public health practitioners (n = 14) in Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities. Sampling was purposive and involved contacting Directors of Public Health directly and snowballing through key contacts. Face-to-face or telephone interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework Method.

Results

Public health practitioners described using systematic reviews directly in decision-making and engaging with them more widely in a range of ways, often through a personal commitment to professional development. They saw themselves as having a role to advocate for the use of rigorous evidence, including systematic reviews, in the wider local authority. Systematic reviews were highly valued in principle and public health practitioners had relevant skills to find and appraise them. However, the extent of use varied by individual and local authority and was limited by the complexity of decision-making and various barriers. Barriers included that there were a limited number of systematic reviews available on certain public health topics, such as the wider determinants of health, and that the narrow focus of reviews was not reflective of complex public health decisions facing local authorities. Reviews were used alongside a range of other evidence types, including grey literature. The source of evidence was often considered an indicator of quality, with specific organisations, such as Public Health England, NICE and Cochrane, particularly trusted.

Conclusions

Research use varies and should be considered within the specific decision-making and political context. There is a need for systematic reviews to be more reflective of the decisions facing local authority public health teams.

Organizational Supports for Research Evidence Use in State Public Health Agencies: A Latent Class Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Use of research evidence in public health decision making can be affected by organizational supports. Study objectives are to identify patterns of organizational supports and explore associations with research evidence use for job tasks among public health practitioners.

DESIGN

In this longitudinal study, we used latent class analysis to identify organizational support patterns, followed by mixed logistic regression analysis to quantify associations with research evidence use.

SETTING

The setting included 12 state public health department chronic disease prevention units and their external partnering organizations involved in chronic disease prevention.

PARTICIPANTS

Chronic disease prevention staff from 12 US state public health departments and partnering organizations completed self-report surveys at 2 time points, in 2014 and 2016 (N = 872).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Latent class analysis was employed to identify subgroups of survey participants with distinct patterns of perceived organizational supports. Two classify-analyze approaches (maximum probability assignment and multiple pseudo-class draws) were used in 2017 to investigate the association between latent class membership and research evidence use.

RESULTS

The optimal model identified 4 latent classes, labeled as "unsupportive workplace," "low agency leadership support," "high agency leadership support," and "supportive workplace." With maximum probability assignment, participants in "high agency leadership support" (odds ratio = 2.08; 95% CI, 1.35-3.23) and "supportive workplace" (odds ratio = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.10-2.74) were more likely to use research evidence in job tasks than "unsupportive workplace." The multiple pseudo-class draws produced comparable results with odds ratio = 2.09 (95% CI, 1.31-3.30) for "high agency leadership support" and odds ratio = 1.74 (95% CI, 1.07-2.82) for "supportive workplace."

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that leadership support may be a crucial element of organizational supports to encourage research evidence use. Organizational supports such as supervisory expectations, access to evidence, and participatory decision making may need leadership support as well to improve research evidence use in public health job tasks.

Increasing translation of research evidence for optimal park design: a qualitative study with stakeholders

Background

The design of parks is critical to ensure they are appealing, meet the needs of the community and optimise opportunities for physical activity, relaxation, exposure to nature and social interaction. There is currently a lack of understanding on how research evidence is informing park design and how to reduce the many challenges associated with research-practice-policy translation. Understanding how organisations use evidence for decision-making regarding park design is critical for reducing the research-practice-policy gap and ensuring evidence based strategies inform park design to support healthy active living. This study explored stakeholder perceptions regarding factors that influence the use of research evidence to inform park planning and design, and potential strategies to enhance effective translation of research evidence for optimal park design into policy and practice.

Methods

One-on-one in-depth interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders within the park design, planning and management sector. Participants shared experiences regarding: influences on park development and design; current park development policies; ways to facilitate use of evidence; and priorities for future research. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and content analysis performed using NVivo 12.

Results

Research evidence is used and considered important for park planning; however, several barriers were highlighted: time and cost constraints; difficulties accessing research; and limited research relevant to specific needs. Developing partnerships between researchers and park developers and providing evidence in a more accessible format such as short summaries/reports, infographics, presentations, research updates and dedicated research databases emerged as key enablers. The main research gaps identified included research into park features to encourage visitation and cost-benefit analyses studies.

Conclusions

This research is a first step to better understand strategies to promote more effective uptake and use of evidence to inform park planning. Researchers must develop multi-sectoral collaborations and generate policy-relevant research in a readily accessible, timely and user-friendly format to ensure evidence is used to enhance park design and ultimately public health.

The Role of Expert Judgment in Statistical Inference and Evidence-Based Decision-Making

This article resulted from our participation in the session on the "role of expert opinion and judgment in statistical inference" at the October 2017 ASA Symposium on Statistical Inference. We present a strong, unified statement on roles of expert judgment in statistics with processes for obtaining input, whether from a Bayesian or frequentist perspective. Topics include the role of subjectivity in the cycle of scientific inference and decisions, followed by a clinical trial and a greenhouse gas emissions case study that illustrate the role of judgments and the importance of basing them on objective information and a comprehensive uncertainty assessment. We close with a call for increased proactivity and involvement of statisticians in study conceptualization, design, conduct, analysis, and communication.

The role of scientific evidence in decisions to adopt complex innovations in cancer care settings: a multiple case study in Nova Scotia, Canada

Background

Health care delivery and outcomes can be improved by using innovations (i.e., new ideas, technologies, and practices) supported by scientific evidence. However, scientific evidence may not be the foremost factor in adoption decisions and is rarely sufficient. The objective of this study was to examine the role of scientific evidence in decisions to adopt complex innovations in cancer care.

Methods

Using an explanatory, multiple case study design, we examined the adoption of complex innovations in five purposively sampled cases in Nova Scotia, Canada. Data were collected via documents and key informant interviews. Data analysis involved an in-depth analysis of each case, followed by a cross-case analysis to develop theoretically informed, generalizable knowledge on the role of scientific evidence in innovation adoption that may be applied to similar settings and contexts.

Results

The analyses identified key concepts alongside important caveats and considerations. Key concepts were (1) scientific evidence underpinned the adoption process, (2) evidence from multiple sources informed decision-making, (3) decision-makers considered three key issues when making decisions, and (4) champions were essential to eventual adoption. Caveats and considerations related to the presence of urgent problems and short-term financial pressures and minimizing risk.

Conclusions

The findings revealed the different types of issues decision-makers consider while making these decisions and why different sources of evidence are needed in these processes. Future research should examine how different types of evidence are legitimized and why some types are prioritized over others.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0859-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Addressing ethical challenges in HIV prevention research with people who inject drugs

Despite recent advances in HIV prevention and treatment, high HIV incidence persists among people who inject drugs (PWID). Difficult legal and political environments and lack of services for PWID likely contribute to high HIV incidence. Some advocates question whether any HIV prevention research is ethically justified in settings where healthcare system fails to provide basic services to PWID and where implementation of research findings is fraught with political barriers. Ethical challenges in research with PWID include concern about whether research evidence will be translated into practice; concerns that research might exacerbate background risks; and ethical challenges regarding the standard of HIV prevention in research. While these questions arise in other research settings, for research with PWID, these questions are especially controversial. This paper analyses four ethical questions in determining whether research could be ethically acceptable: (1) Can researchers ensure that research does not add to the burden of social harms and poor health experienced by PWID? (2) Should research be conducted in settings where it is uncertain whether research findings will be translated into practice? (3) When best practices in prevention and care are not locally available, what standard of care and prevention is ethically appropriate? (4) Does the conduct of research in settings with oppressive policies constitute complicity? We outline specific criteria to address these four ethical challenges. We also urge researchers to join the call to action for policy change to provide proven safe and effective HIV prevention and harm reduction interventions for PWID around the world.

Collaborative Approaches and Policy Opportunities for Accelerated Progress toward Effective Disease Prevention, Care, and Control: Using the Case of Poverty Diseases to Explore Universal Access to Affordable Health Care

Background

There is a massive global momentum to progress toward the sustainable development and universal health coverage goals. However, effective policies to health-care coverage can only emerge through high-quality services delivered to empowered care users by means of strong local health systems and a translational standpoint. Health policies aimed at removing user fees for a defined health-care package may fail at reaching desired results if not applied with system thinking.

Method

Secondary data analysis of two country-based cost-of-illness studies was performed to gain knowledge in informed decision-making toward enhanced access to care in the context of resource-constraint settings. A scoping review was performed to map relevant experiences and evidence underpinning the defined research area, the economic burden of illness.

Findings

Original studies reflected on catastrophic costs to patients because of care services use and related policy gaps. Poverty diseases such as tuberculosis (TB) may constitute prime examples to assess the extent of effective high-priority health-care coverage. Our findings suggest that a share of the economic burden of illness can be attributed to implementation failures of health programs and supply-side features, which may highly impair attainment of the global stated goals. We attempted to define and discuss a knowledge development framework for effective policy-making and foster system levers for integrated care.

Discussion

Bottlenecks to effective policy persist and rely on interrelated patterns of health-care coverage. Health system performance and policy responsiveness have to do with collaborative work among all health stakeholders. Public–private mix strategies may play a role in lowering the economic burden of disease and solving some policy gaps. We reviewed possible added value and pitfalls of collaborative approaches to enhance dynamic local knowledge development and realize integration with the various health-care silos.

Conclusion

Despite a large political commitment and mobilization efforts from funding, the global development goal of financial protection for health—newly adopted in TB control as no TB-affected household experiencing catastrophic expenditure—may remain aspirational. To enhance effective access to care for all, innovative opportunities in patient-centered and collaborative practices must be taken. Further research is greatly needed to optimize the use of locally relevant knowledge, networks, and technologies.

The use of evidence in English local public health decision-making: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Public 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

From 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.

CONCLUSIONS

There 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.

Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries

The knowledge-practice gap in public health is widely known. The importance of using different types of evidence for the development of effective health promotion has also been emphasized. Nevertheless, in practice, intervention decisions are often based on perceived short-term opportunities, lacking the most effective approaches, thus limiting the impact of health promotion strategies. This article focuses on facilitators and barriers in the use of evidence in developing health enhancing physical activity policies. Data was collected in 2012 by interviewing 86 key stakeholders from six EU countries (FI, DK, UK, NL, IT, RO) using a common topic guide. Content analysis and concept mapping was used to construct a map of facilitators and barriers. Barriers and facilitators experienced by most stakeholders and policy context in each country are analysed. A lack of locally useful and concrete evidence, evidence on costs, and a lack of joint understanding were specific hindrances. Also users' characteristics and the role media play were identified as factors of influence. Attention for individual and social factors within the policy context might provide the key to enhance more sustainable evidence use. Developing and evaluating tailored approaches impacting on networking, personal relationships, collaboration and evidence coproduction is recommended.

Supporting Better Evidence Generation and Use within Social Innovation in Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Qualitative Study

Background

While several papers have highlighted a lack of evidence to scale social innovations in health, fewer have explored decision-maker understandings of the relative merit of different types of evidence, how such data are interpreted and applied, and what practical support is required to improve evidence generation. The objectives of this paper are to understand (1) beliefs and attitudes towards the value of and types of evidence in scaling social innovations for health, (2) approaches to evidence generation and evaluation used in systems and policy change, and (3) how better evidence-generation can be undertaken and supported within social innovation in health.

Methods

Thirty-two one-on-one interviews were conducted between July and November 2015 with purposively selected practitioners, policymakers, and funders from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). Data were analysed using a Framework Analysis Approach.

Results

While practitioners, funders, and policymakers said they held outcome evidence in high regard, their practices only bear out this assertion to varying degrees. Few have given systematic consideration to potential unintended consequences, in particular harm, of the programs they implement, fund, or adopt. Stakeholders suggest that better evidence-generation can be undertaken and supported within social innovation in health by supporting the research efforts of emerging community organizations; creating links between practitioners and academia; altering the funding landscape for evidence-generation; providing responsive technical education; and creating accountability for funders, practitioners, and policymakers.

Conclusion

How better evidence-generation can be undertaken and supported within social innovation in health is a previously under-operationalised aspect of the policy-making process that remains essential in order to refrain from causing harm, enable the optimization of existing interventions, and ultimately, to scale and fund what works.

Evaluating and Using Observational Evidence: The Contrasting Views of Policy Makers and Epidemiologists

BACKGROUND

Currently, little is known about the types of evidence used by policy makers. This study aimed to investigate how policy makers in the health domain use and evaluate evidence and how this differs from academic epidemiologists. By having a better understanding of how policy makers select, evaluate, and use evidence, academics can tailor the way in which that evidence is produced, potentially leading to more effective knowledge translation.

METHODS

An exploratory mixed-methods study design was used. Quantitative measures were collected via an anonymous online survey (n = 28), with sampling from three health-related government and non-government organizations. Semi-structured interviews with policy makers (n = 20) and epidemiologists (n = 6) were conducted to gather qualitative data.

RESULTS

Policy makers indicated systematic reviews were the preferred research resource (19%), followed closely by qualitative research (16%). Neither policy makers nor epidemiologists used grading instruments to evaluate evidence. In the web survey, policy makers reported that consistency and strength of evidence (93%), the quality of data (93%), bias in the evidence (79%), and recency of evidence (79%) were the most important factors taken into consideration when evaluating the available evidence. The same results were found in the qualitative interviews. Epidemiologists focused on the methodology used in the study. The most cited barriers to using robust evidence, according to policy makers, were political considerations (60%), time limitations (55%), funding (50%), and research not being applicable to current policies (50%).

CONCLUSION

The policy maker's investigation did not report a systematic approach to evaluating evidence. Although there was some overlap between what policy makers and epidemiologists identified as high-quality evidence, there was also some important differences. This suggests that the best scientific evidence may not routinely be used in the development of policy. In essence, the policy-making process relied on other jurisdictions' policies and the opinions of internal staff members as primary evidence sources to inform policy decisions. Findings of this study suggest that efforts should be directed toward making scientific information more systematically available to policy makers.

Population Approaches to Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes

Martin White argues that whole population interventions will be needed in addition to those targeted to people at high risk in order to respond to the global challenge of type 2 diabetes.