How can we support best practice? A situational assessment of injury prevention practice in public health

Supporting community overdose response planning in Ontario, Canada: Findings from a situational assessment

Background

Many communities across North America are coming together to develop comprehensive plans to address and respond to the escalating overdose crisis, largely driven by an increasingly toxic unregulated drug supply. As there is a need to build capacity for successful implementation, the objective of our mixed methods study was to identify the current planning and implementation practices, needs, and priority areas of support for community overdose response plans in Ontario, Canada.

Methods

We used a situational assessment methodology to collect data on current planning and implementation practices, needs, and challenges related to community overdose response plans in Ontario, consisting of three components. Between November 2019 to February 2020, we conducted ten semi-structured key informant interviews, three focus groups with 25 participants, and administered an online survey (N = 66). Purposeful sampling was used to identify professionals involved in coordinating, supporting, or partnering on community overdose response plans in jurisdictions with relevant information for Ontario including other Canadian provinces and American states. Key informants included evaluators, representatives involved in centralised supports, as well as coordinators and partners on community overdose response plans. Focus group participants were coordinators or leads of community overdose response plans in Ontario.

Results

Sixty-six professionals participated in the study. The current planning and implementation practices of community overdose response plans varied in Ontario. Our analysis generated four overarching areas for needs and support for the planning and implementation of community overdose response plans: 1) data and information; 2) evidence and practice; 3) implementation/operational factors; and 4) partnership, engagement, and collaboration. Addressing stigma and equity within planning and implementation of community overdose response plans was a cross-cutting theme that included meaningful engagement of people with living and lived expertise and meeting the service needs of different populations and communities.

Conclusions

Through exploring the needs and related supports for community overdose response plans in Ontario, we have identified key priority areas for building local capacity building to address overdose-related harms. Ongoing development and refinement, community partnership, and evaluation of our project will highlight the influence of our supports to advance the capacity, motivation, and opportunities of community overdose response plans.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13762-0.

Active & Safe Central: using a mixed-methods design and the RE-AIM framework to evaluate a sport and recreational injury prevention resource for practitioners in Canada

OBJECTIVES

An online, evidence-based resource was created to support the development of sport and recreational injury prevention programmes. The resource, called Active & Safe Central (www.activesafe.ca), provides evidence-based information across the public health approach for a number of sport and recreational activities. The objective of this project was to evaluate the perceived usefulness of Active & Safe Central as an educational tool.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods study design, guided by the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance) framework, was used to evaluate Active & Safe Central.

SETTING

Data were collected using an online survey, available to all users of the site, and focus groups (n=2) that took place in Vancouver and Toronto, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Survey respondents (n=87) were recruited online, including parents, coaches, youth and adult athletes, and teachers. Focus group participants (n=16) were key stakeholders and end users, recruited from academia, local health sectors, sport and recreational organisations, and not-for-profit injury prevention organisations.

RESULTS

Post launch, there were 1712 users visiting the website 2306 times (sessions), with the majority representing new users, over returning users (87.5% and 12.5%, respectively). There were 6340 page visits, with the most popular pages including soccer, playgrounds and ice hockey. Active & Safe Central was reported as a credible source of evidence-based sport and recreational information and that the site would be recommended to others. Information collected from focus group participants was used to inform necessary adaptations to the online platform, including critical navigation issues, visualisations and interactivity. The major themes that emerged from focus group and survey data included increased awareness of injury prevention recommendations and that the recommendations would be used in one's own sporting activity and/or practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the evaluation suggest the tool is a useful resource for sport and recreational injury information that has significant potential to impact prevention practice.

Strengthening public health nutrition: findings from a situational assessment to inform system-wide capacity building in Ontario, Canada

Objective:

To assess public health nutrition practice within the public health system in Ontario, Canada to identify provincial-wide needs for scientific and technical support.

Design:

A qualitative descriptive study was conducted to identify activities, strengths, challenges and opportunities in public health nutrition practice using semi-structured key informant interviews (n 21) and focus groups (n 10). Recorded notes were analysed concurrently with data generation using content analysis. System needs were prioritised through a survey.

Setting:

Public health units.

Participants:

Eighty-nine practitioners, managers, directors, medical officers of health, researchers and other stakeholders were purposively recruited through snowball and extreme case sampling.

Results:

Five themes were generated: (i) current public health nutrition practice was broad, complex, in transition and collaborative; (ii) data/evidence/research relevant to public health needs were insufficiently available and accessible; (iii) the amount and specificity of guidance/leadership was perceived to be mismatched with strong evidence that diet is a risk factor for poor health; (iv) resources/capacity were varied but insufficient and (v) understanding of nutrition expertise in public health among colleagues, leadership and other organisations can be improved. Top ranked needs were increased understanding, visibility and prioritisation of healthy eating and food environments; improved access to data and evidence; improved collaboration and coordination; and increased alignment of activities and goals.

Conclusions:

Collective capacity in the public health nutrition can be improved through strategic system-wide capacity-building interventions. Research is needed to explore how improvements in data, evidence and local contexts can bridge research and practice to effectively and efficiently improve population diets and health.