How has child maltreatment surveillance data been used in Canada?

Health Research Policy and Systems

Wendy K Martin¹  Lil Tonmyr¹ 

[1] Injury and Child Maltreatment Section, Public Health Agency of Canada, 785 Carling, AL 6807B, Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9, Canada

关键词: Surveillance;    Research utilization;    Performance measurement;    Knowledge uptake;    Data collection;    Child maltreatment;   

Others  :  1177313
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-4505-12-65

 received in 2014-05-24, accepted in 2014-11-19,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Recently, a survey was performed as part of a larger study at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) to develop and pilot a series of tools to measure the uptake and use of PHAC-produced or -supported knowledge products by its key partners and stakeholders. This article aims to i) examine the uptake and use of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2008 (CIS-2008) and to ii) assess the utility of a knowledge uptake survey for collecting performance measurement data.

Methods

Using the knowledge utilization ladder as a theoretical framework, a short survey was developed around the themes of reception, cognition, conversation, reference, effort, influence, and implementation. The survey was administered electronically to potential end-users of the CIS-2008. The final sample comprised 85 respondents.

Results

The results demonstrated that the majority of the respondents were aware of CIS-2008 and had read and used it. A wide array of disciplines and sectors were identified as end-users. Types of use included discussion of CIS data with social workers, child welfare and health advocates, students, medical and legal professionals, and senior government decision makers. Further, CIS was referenced in reports, articles, policy research, community programs, and funding proposals and was used to influence or support the development of policies, programs, and projects. Valuable information on the use of surveillance reports, such as CIS-2008, can be gathered from a brief survey that was easy to administer, cost effective, and that respondents needed minimal time to complete.

Conclusions

Piloting of the survey demonstrated that the tool, while not perfect, is quite useful for capturing performance measurement information; CIS-2008 is appreciated and used. There is an increased recognition of the importance of the CIS as a unique source of Canadian child maltreatment surveillance data that can influence and lead to the implementation of new programs and policies. Although suggestions for improvement of the CIS-2008 were provided, the present findings offer support for ongoing national child maltreatment surveillance.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Tonmyr and Martin; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Tonmyr L, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, Black T, Trocmé N: Surveillance and research through child welfare agencies. Canadas Child 2007, 13(2):38-42.
• [2]Tonmyr L, De Marco R, Hovdestad W, Hubka D: Policy makers’ perspectives on the utility of a national study of child maltreatment. Child Maltreat 2004, 9(3):304-308.
• [3]Tonmyr L, Jack S: Media analysis of the Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare 2010, 89(1):81-101.
• [4]Tonmyr L, Jack S, Brooks S, Kennedy B, Dudding P: Utilization of the Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect in first Nations child welfare agencies in Ontario. First People Child Fam Rev 2008, 4(1):38-46.
• [5]Tonmyr L, Jack SM, Brooks S, Williams G, Campeau A, Dudding P: Utilisation of the Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect in child welfare agencies in Ontario. Chronic Dis Inj Can 2012, 33(1):29-37.
• [6]Roush SW: Analysis of surveillance data. In Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Chapter 20. 5th edition. Edited by Roush SW, McIntyre L, Baldy LM. Atlanta: Center for Disease Control and Prevention Chapter; 2012.
• [7]Public Health Agency of Canada: Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect – 2008: Major Findings. Ottawa: PHAC; 2010.
• [8]Trocmé N, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, Daciuk J, Felstiner C, Black T, Tonmyr L, Blackstock C, Barter K, Turcotte D, Cloutier R: Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect – 2003: Major Findings. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 2005.
• [9]Trocmé N, MacLaurin B, Fallon B, Daciuk J, Billingsley D, Tourigny M, Mayer M, Wright J, Barter K, Burford G, Hornick J, Sullivan R, McKenzie B: Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 1998 (CIS-1998): Final Report. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 1998.
• [10]Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Management, Resources, and Results Structure Policy. Ottawa: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; 2008. [http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=12412 webcite]
• [11]McDavid JC, Hawthorn LRL: Program Evaluation & Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006:294.
• [12]Mayne J: Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly. Can J Program Eval 2001, 16(1):1-24.
• [13]Maxwell N: Linking ongoing performance measurement and program evaluation in the Canadian Federal Government. Can J Program Eval 1986, 1(1):39-46.
• [14]Buckley H, Tonmyr L, Lewig K, Jack S: Factors influencing uptake of research evidence in child welfare: a synthesis of findings from Australia, Canada and Ireland. Child Abuse Rev 2013, 23:5-16.
• [15]Chagnon F, Pouliot L, Malo C, Gervais M-J, Pigeon M-E: Comparison of determinants of research knowledge utilization by practitioners and administrators in the field of child and family social services. Implement Sci 2010, 5:41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Jack SM, Dobbins M, Tonmyr L, Brooks S, Dudding P, Kennedy B: Research evidence utilization in policy development by child welfare administrators. Child Welfare 2010, 89(4):83-100.
• [17]Adams S: Use of evidence-based practice in school nursing: survey of school nurses at a national conference. J Sch Nurs 2009, 25:302-313.
• [18]Cadiz D, Sawyer JE, Griffith TL: Developing and validating field measurement scales for absorptive capacity and experienced community of practice. Educ Psychol Meas 2009, 69(6):1035-1058.
• [19]Chen C-J, Hung S-W: To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’ knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Inform Manage 2010, 47(4):226-236.
• [20]Cummings G, Biondo PD, Campbell D, Stiles C, Fainsinger R, Muise M, Hagen N: Can the global uptake of palliative care innovations be improved? Insights from a bibliometric analysis of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Palliat Med 2011, 25:71-82.
• [21]Curran JA, Murphy AL, Abidi SSR, Sinclair D, McGrath PJ: Bridging the gap: knowledge seeking and sharing in a virtual community of emergency practice. Eval Health Prof 2009, 32(3):314-327.
• [22]Donaldson NE, Rutledge DN, Ashlev J: Outcome of adoption: measuring evidence uptake by individuals and organizations. World Evid-Based Nu 2004, 1:S45-S51.
• [23]Flatten TC, Engelen A, Zahra SA, Brettel M: A measure of absorptive capacity: scale development and validation. Eur Manage J 2011, 29(2):98-116.
• [24]Hoyt JE, Whyte C: Increasing the quality and value of conferences, seminars and workshops. J Cont High Educ 2011, 59:97-103.
• [25]Macdonald CJ, Archibald D, Stodel M, Chambers LW, Hall P: Knowledge translation of interprofessional collaborative patient-centered practice: the working together project experience. MJE 2008, 43(3):283-307.
• [26]Pluye P, Grad RM, Johnson-Lafleur J, Bambrick T, Burnand B, Mercer J, Marlow B, Campbell C: Evaluation of email alerts in practice: part 1 – review of the literature on clinical emailing channels. J Eval Clin Pract 2010, 16:1227-1235.
• [27]Rubin A, Parrish DE: Development and validation of the evidence-based practice process assessment scale: preliminary findings. Res Social Work Pract 2010, 20(6):629-640.
• [28]Skinner K: Developing a tool to measure knowledge exchange outcomes. Can J Program Eval 2007, 22(1):49-73.
• [29]Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID, Zwarenstein M, Bhattacharyya O, Shepperd S: Monitoring use of knowledge and evaluating outcomes. CMAJ 2010, 182(2):E94-E98.
• [30]Sullivan TM, Strachan M, Timmons BK, Rinehart W: Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating Health Information Products and Services. Cambridge, MA: Management Sciences for Health; 2007.
• [31]Wong K, Gardner S, Baingridge DB, Feightner K, Offord DR, Chambers LW: Tracking the use and impact of a community social report: Where does the information go? Can J Public Health 2000, 91(1):41-45.
• [32]Wu R, Greutmann-Yantiri M, Gershon A, Ross H: Evaluation of a web-based interactive heart failure patient simulation: a pilot study. Can J Cardiol 2011, 27(3):369-375.
• [33]DeGoede J, Steenkamer B, Treurniet H, Putters K, Van Oers H: Public health knowledge utilisation by policy actors: an evaluation study in Midden-Holland, the Netherlands. Evid Policy 2011, 7(1):7-24.
• [34]Landry R, Amara N, Lamari M: Climbing the ladder of research utilisation. Sci Commun 2001, 22(4):396-422.
• [35]Knott J, Wildavsky A: If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowl Creation Diffusion Util 1980, 4(1):537-578.
• [36]Jack S, Tonmyr L: Knowledge transfer and exchange: disseminating Canadian child maltreatment surveillance findings to decision makers. Child Indic Res 2008, 1(1):51-64.
• [37]Tonmyr L, Ouimet C, Ugnat A-M: A review of findings from the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS). Can J Public Health 2012, 103(2):103-112.
• [38]Kessler ML, Gira E, Poertner J: Moving best practice to best evidence-based practice in child welfare. Fam Soc 2005, 86(2):244-250.
• [39]Tonmyr L, Hovdestad W: Public health approach to child maltreatment in Canada. Paediatr Child Health 2013, 18(8):411-413.
• [40]Singh VA, Thornton T, Tonmyr L: Determinants of substance abuse in a population of children and adolescents involved with the child welfare system. Int J Ment Health Ad 2001, 9(4):382-397.
• [41]Fallon B, Chabot M, Fluke J, Blackstock C, MacLaurin B, Tonmyr L: Placement decisions and disparities among Aboriginal children: further analysis of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect part A: comparisons of the 1998 and 2003 surveys. Child Abuse Negl 2013, 37(1):47-60.
• [42]Fluke JD, Chabot M, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, Blackstock C: Placement decisions and disparities among aboriginal groups: an application of the decision making ecology through multi-level analysis. Child Abuse Negl 2010, 34(1):57-69.
• [43]Chabot M, Fallon B, Tonmyr L, MacLaurin B, Fluke J, Blackstock C: Placement decisions and disparities among Aboriginal children: further analysis of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect part B: exploring alternate specifications to explain second-level effects. Child Abuse Negl 2013, 37(1):61-76.
• [44]Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J: How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 2003, 81(2):221-248.
• [45]Sheehan K: E-mail survey response rates: a review. J Comput Mediat Commun 2001., 6(2)