Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making

BMC Public Health

Lori Greco¹  Stephanie Workentine¹  Kara DeCorby²  Robyn Traynor¹  Maureen Dobbins¹  Jennifer Yost¹ 

[1] School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1200 Main St. W, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada;Health Promotion, Chronic Disease & Injury Prevention, Public Health Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

关键词: Tools;    Public health;    Knowledge broker;    Knowledge translation and exchange;    Evidence-informed decision making;   

Others  :  1128994
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-728

 received in 2014-04-05, accepted in 2014-07-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Public 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.

Methods

As 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.

Results

Tools 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.

Conclusion

Tools 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.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Yost et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE: Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012, 7:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I: Defining knowledge translation. Can Med Assoc J 2009, 181:165-168.
• [3]Straus SE, Tetroe JM, Graham ID: Knowledge translation is the use of knowledge in health care decision making. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:6-10.
• [4]National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision Making in Public Health. http://www.nccmt.ca/publications/1/view-eng.html webcite
• [5]Dobbins M, Thomas H, O’Brien MA, Duggan M: The use of systematic reviews in the development of new provincial public health policies in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004, 20:399-404.
• [6]Dobbins M, DeCorby K, Twiddy T: A knowledge transfer strategy for public health decision makers. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2004, 1:120-128.
• [7]Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E: Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10:35-48.
• [8]Government of Quebec: Revised Statutes of Quebec, Public Health Act. [http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/S_2_2/S2_2_A.html webcite]
• [9]Peirson L, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Mowat D: Building capacity for evidence informed decision making in public health: a case study of organizational change. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:137. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Brownson RC, Fielding J, Maylahn C: Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health 2009, 30:175-201.
• [11]Ward M, Mowat D: Creating an organizational culture for evidence-informed decision making. Healthc Manage Forum 2012, 25:146-150.
• [12]Di Ruggiero E, Frank J, Moloughney B: Strengthen Canada’s public health system now. Can J Public Health 2004, 95:5-11.
• [13]Ciliska D, Thomas H, Buffett C: An introduction to evidence-based public health and a compendium of critical appraisal tools for public health practice (Revised). Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools; 2012.
• [14]Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, Thomas H, Manske S, Cameron R, Mercer SL, O’Mara L, DeCorby K, Robeson P: A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci 2009, 4:61. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]LaPelle NR, Luckmann R, Hatheway Simpson E, Martin ER: Identifying strategies to improve access to credible and relevant information for public health professionals: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2006, 6:89-101. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Bowen S, Erickson T, Martens P, Crockett S: More than “using research”: the real challenges in promoting evidence-informed decision-making. Health Policy 2009, 4:87-102.
• [17]Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside J, McLeod C, Abelson J: How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 2003, 81:221-248.
• [18]Ward M: Evidence-informed decision making in a public health setting. Healthc Manage Forum 2011, 24:S8-S16.
• [19]Stetler CB, Ritchie JA, Rycroft-Malone J, Shultz AA, Charns MP: Institutionalizing evidence-based practice: an organizational case study using a model of strategic change. Implement Sci 2009., 4
• [20]Ellen ME, Leon G, Bouchard G, Lavis JN, Ouimet M, Grimshaw JM: What supports do health system organizations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making? A qualitative study. Implement Sci 2013, 8:84. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Lomas J: The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ 2007, 334:129-132.
• [22]Gagnon ML: Moving knowledge to action through dissemination and exchange. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:25-31.
• [23]Dobbins M, DeCorby K, Robeson P, Husson H, Tirilis D, Greco L: A knowledge management tool for public health: health-evidence.ca. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:496. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Kiefer L, Frank J, Di Ruggiero E, Dobbins M, Manuel D, Gully PR, Mowat D: Fostering evidence-based decision-making in Canada: examining the need for a Canadian Population and Public Health Evidence Centre and Research Network. Can J Public Health 2005, 96:I-1-I-19.
• [25]Public Health Agency of Canada: Canadian Best Practice Portal: Evidence-Informed Decision-Making Tools. [http://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/resources/evidence-informed-decision-making/ webcite]
• [26]Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O’Mara L, DeCorby K, Mercer S: A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci 2009, 4:23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Clark JP: How to peer review a qualitative manuscript. In Peer Review in Health Sciences. Edited by Godlee F, Jefferson T. London: BMJ Books; 2003:219-235.
• [28]Pascale R, Athos A: The Art of Japanese Management. London: Penguin Books; 1981.
• [29]Peters T, Waterman R: In Search of Excellence. New York, London: Harper & Row; 1982.
• [30]Waterman R, Peters J, Phillips JR: Structure is not organisation. Bus Horiz 1980, 23:14-26.
• [31]Hewitt-Taylor J: Use of constant comparative analysis in qualitative research. Nurs Stand 2001, 15:39-42.
• [32]Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement: What We Do: Education and Training: EXTRA. [http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/WhatWeDo/EducationandTraining/EXTRA.aspx webcite]
• [33]Health Evidence: Developing an efficient search strategy using PICO. [http://www.healthevidence.org/practice-tools.aspx#PT2 webcite]
• [34]National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Evidence-informed public health- Define: Clearly define the question or problem. [http://www.nccmt.ca/eiph/define-eng.html webcite]
• [35]Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H: Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci 2010, 5:56-65. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Harker J, Kleijnen J: What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2012, 10:397-410.
• [37]Region of Peel Public Health: Step 1 - Developing a conceptual model - instructions and worksheet. [http://www.peelregion.ca/health/library/developing-model.asp webcite]
• [38]Haynes B: Of Studies, Synthesis, Synopses, Summaries and Systems; the 5 S’s evolution of Information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. Evid Based Nurs 2007, 10:6-7.
• [39]DiCenso A, Bayley L, Haynes RB: Accessing pre-appraised evidence: fine-tuning the 5S model into a 6S model. Evid Based Nurs 2009, 12:99-101.
• [40]Robeson P, Yost J: Resources to Guide & Track your Search. [http://www.healthevidence.org/practice-tools.aspx#PT4 webcite]
• [41]Robeson P, Dobbins M, DeCorby K, Tirilis D: Facilitating access to pre-processed research evidence in public health. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:95. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Health Evidence: Keeping track of search results: A flowchart. [http://www.healthevidence.org/practice-tools.aspx#PT5 webcite]
• [43]Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Graham ID, Grimshaw J, Hanna SE, Littlejohns P, Makarski J, Zitzelsberger L, AGREE Next Steps Consortium: AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Can Med Assoc J 2010, 182:E839-E842.
• [44]Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Graham ID, Hanna SE, Makarski J, AGREE Next Steps Consortium: Development of the AGREE II, part 1: performance, usefulness and areas for improvement. CMAJ 2010, 182:1045-1052.
• [45]Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, Fervers B, Graham ID, Hanna SE, Makarski J, AGREE Next Steps Consortium: Development of the AGREE II, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application. CMAJ 2010, 182:E472-E478.
• [46]Health Evidence: Quality assessment tool: Review articles. [http://www.healthevidence.org/documents/our-appraisal-tools/QA_tool&dictionary_18.Mar.2013.pdf webcite]
• [47]Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM: Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [48]Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M: AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:1013-1020.
• [49]AMSTAR: Recent Developments. [http://amstar.ca/Developments.php webcite]
• [50]AMSTAR: About us. [http://amstar.ca/About_Amstar.php webcite]
• [51]Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: Appraising the evidence. [http://www.casp-uk.net/find-appraise-act/appraising-the-evidence/ webcite]
• [52]Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Critical appraisal: Notes and checklists. [http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html webcite]
• [53]National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Critical appraisal tools to make sense of evidence. [http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/87.html webcite]
• [54]Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: History. [http://www.casp-uk.net/# webcite!history/cnxo]
• [55]Hannes K, Lockwood C, Pearson A: A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2010, 20:1736-1743.
• [56]Effective Public Health Practice Project: Quality assessment tools for quantitative studies. [http://www.ephpp.ca/tools.html webcite]
• [57]Letts L, Wilkins S, Law M, Stewart D, Bosch J, Westmorland M: Critical Review Form – Qualitative Studies (Version 2.0). [http://www.srs-mcmaster.ca/Portals/20/pdf/ebp/qualreview_version2.0.pdf webcite]
• [58]Occupational Therapy Evidence-Based Practice Research Group. [http://www.srs-mcmaster.ca/Default.aspx?tabid=630 webcite]
• [59]Region of Peel Public Health: Step 4 - Data extraction for systematic reviews. [http://www.peelregion.ca/health/library/data-extraction.asp webcite]
• [60]National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Methods: Synthesis 1. Rapid reviews: Methods and implications. [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/Methods_Synthesis1.pdf webcite]
• [61]National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Evidence-informed public health- Adapt: Adapt the information to a local context. [http://www.nccmt.ca/eiph/adapt-eng.html webcite]
• [62]Buffet C, Ciliska D, Thomas H: Can I Use This Evidence in my Program Decision? Assessing Applicability and Transferability of Evidence. [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/AT_paper_with_tool_final_-_English_Oct_07.pdf webcite]
• [63]Buffet C, Ciliska D, Thomas H: It worked there. Will it work here? A tool for assessing applicability and transferability of evidence (A: When considering starting a new program). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/A&Trevised-startEN.pdf webcite]
• [64]Buffet C, Ciliska D, Thomas H: It worked there. Will it work here? A tool for assessing applicability and transferability of evidence (B: When considering stopping an existing program). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/A&Trevised-startEN.pdf webcite]
• [65]National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Applicability and transferability of evidence tool (A&T tool). [http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/24.html webcite]
• [66]Region of Peel Public Health: Step 6 - Rapid review report structure. [http://www.peelregion.ca/health/library/report-structure.asp webcite]
• [67]Canadian Health Services Research Foundation: Communication notes: Reader-friendly writing - 1:3:25. [http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Migrated/PDF/CommunicationNotes/cn-1325_e.pdf webcite]
• [68]Barwick M: Scientist Knowledge Translation Plan Template - R™. [http://www.melaniebarwick.com/training.php webcite]
• [69]National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Evidence informed public health - Implement: Decide whether (and plan how) to implement the adapted evidence into practice or policy. [http://www.nccmt.ca/eiph/implement-eng.html webcite]
• [70]Ross S, Goering P, Jacobson N, Butterill D: A Guide for Assessing Health Research Knowledge Translation Plans. Toronto, ON: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; 2007.
• [71]National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Evidence informed public health - Evaluate: Evaluate the effectiveness of implementation efforts. [http://www.nccmt.ca/eiph/implement-eng.html webcite]
• [72]Region of Peel Public Health: Step 7 - Manager checklist. [http://www.peelregion.ca/health/library/manager-checklist.asp webcite]
• [73]LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M: The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:751. BioMed Central Full Text
• [74]Peirson L, Catallo C, Chera S: the registry of knowledge translation methods and tools: a resource to support evidence-informed public health. Int J Public Health 2013, 58:493-500.
• [75]Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM: External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS Med 2007, 2:e1350.
• [76]Bevan N, Kirakowski J, Maissel J: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on HCI: What is usability?. [http://www.nigelbevan.com/papers/whatis92.pdf webcite]
• [77]Tsakonas G, Papatheodorou C: Analysing and evaluating usefulness and usability in electronic information services. J Inform Sci 2006, 32:400-419.
• [78]Seffah A, Donyaee M, Kline R, Padda H: Usability measurement and metrics: a consolidated model. Software Qual J 2006, 14:159-178.
• [79]Khan BK, Strong DM, Wang RY: Information quality benchmarks: product and service performance. Communications of the ACM 2014, 45:184-192.
• [80]Brownson RC, Gurney JG, Land GH: Evidence-based decision making in public health. J Public Health Manag Pract 1999, 5:86-97.
• [81]Casebeer A, Hayward S, MacKean G, Matthias S, Hayward R: Evidence in action, acting on evidence. SEARCH Canada: Building capacity in health organizations to create and use knowledge. [http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/30667.html webcite]
• [82]Lucas LM: The role of teams, culture, and capacity in the transfer of organizational practices. The Learning Organization 2010, 17:419-436.
• [83]Cummings GG, Estabrooks CA, Midodzi WK, Wallin L, Hayduk L: Influence of organizational characteristics and context on research utilization. Nurs Res 2007, 56:S24-S39.
• [84]Krein SL, Damschroder LJ, Kowalski CP, Forman J, Hofer TP, Saint S: The influence of organizational context on quality improvement and patient safety efforts in infection prevention: a multi-center qualitative study. Soc Sci Med 2010, 71:1692-1701.
• [85]Contandriopoulos D, Denis JL, Lemire M, Tremblay E: Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 2010.
• [86]Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Chandler J, Hawkes CA, Crichton N, Allen C, Bullock I, Strunin L: The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework. Implement Sci 2009, 8:28.
• [87]Dogherty EJ, Harrison MB, Graham ID: Facilitation as a role and process in achieving evidence-based practice in nursing: a focused review of concept and meaning. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2010, 7:76-89.
• [88]Austin MJ: Strategies for transforming human service organizations into learning organizations: knowledge management and the transfer of learning. J Evid Based Soc Work 2008, 5:569-596.
• [89]The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: The Registry of Methods and Tools: Knowledge translation methods and tools for public health. [http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/index-eng.html webcite]
• [90]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Public Health Information. [http://www.evidence.nhs.uk/about-evidence-services/content-and-sources/public-health-information webcite]
• [91]Public Health Agency of Canada: Canadian Best Practices Portal: Planning Public Health Programs: Information and Tools. [http://cbpp-pcpe.phac-aspc.gc.ca/resources/planning-public-health-programs/ webcite]
• [92]Weiner BJ: A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement Sci 2009, 4:67. BioMed Central Full Text
• [93]Guyatt GH, Rennie D: Users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA 1993, 270:2096-2097.