Multi-sectoral health promotion and public health : the role of evidence

Background Evidence-informed health promotion and public health is an emerging and ever-changing theme in research and practice. A collaborative approach to gathering and applying evidence is crucial to implementing effective multi-sectoral health promotion and public health interventions for improved population outcomes. This paper presents an argument for the development of multi-sector evidence and discusses both facilitators and challenges to this process.

Methods Sector-specific contacts familiar with decision-making processes were selected from referrals gained through academic, government and non-government networks and interviewed (in-person or via telephone) as part of a small scale study to scope the use of evidence within non-health sectors where decisions are likely to impact on public health.

Results The views gathered are preliminary, and this analysis would benefit from more extensive consultation. Nonetheless, information gathered from the interviews and literature search provide valuable insights into evidence-related decision-making paradigms which demonstrate similarities with, and differences from, those found in the health sector.

Conclusions Decisions in health promotion and public may benefit from consideration of the ways in which disciplines and sectors can work together to inform policy and practice.

Public health

Public health is crucial for the promotion and protection of health. Links between preventive action and improved health status (eg, in the case of smoking-related cancers, the decline in sudden infant death syndrome and rates of cardiovascular disease) present strong arguments for increased investment in public health infrastructure. The Public Health Education and Research Program has ensured a well-trained public health workforce to support national, state and local initiatives.

Knowledge synthesis, translation and exchange in public health and health promotion: the role of a Cochrane review group

The Cochrane Collaboration is an international non-profit organisation that aims to produce high quality systematic reviews of the effectiveness of health interventions. This work is conducted by 51 Review Groups that span a  range of topics (e.g. pregnancy and childbirth, HIV/AIDS). The role of Fields within the Collaboration has been to actively engage relevant stakeholders internationally to improve the quality and relevance of reviews. Since the inception in 1996 of the Cochrane Public Health and Health Promotion Field, the Cochrane Collaboration has begun to embrace reviews related to public health and health promotion and is adapting to the changing needs of end-users. The introduction of a Cochrane health promotion and public health review group will help ensure that reviews will be oriented towards building evidence for equity and reducing inequalities and best meet the needs of decision-makers, practitioners and consumers. Our role as a Field has led to us working with a range of partners including reviewers,  researchers, practitioners and consumers. Knowledge synthesis, translation and exchange (KST&E) has emerged as an issue in need of further  exploration for practice to influence decision-makers and for policy to  influence practitioners. 2007 will be an exciting year for evidence-informed Health Promotion and Public Health (HPPH) both within the Cochrane Collaboration and for our partners in policy, practice and research.

Are the potential benefits of a community-based participatory approach to public health research worth the potential cost?

Much of public health research is conducted in a community setting or is designed to target particular population groups. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is gaining recognition as good practice in studies of this type(Flicker et al 2007). Its merit is based on the inclusion of the community as active participants at all stages of the research process (Goodman 2006). The focus on justice and equity in this approach is seen to contribute to a range of additional potential research benefits including increased relevance and sustainability of interventions arising from the research ( Blumenthal 2004; Wallestein 2006) However, it is widely acknowledged that adoption of a consciously CBPR approach requires additional expertise. time and resources from researchers and from communities (Tanjasiri et al 2002; Massaro & Claiborne 2001; Israel et al 1998). Adoption of CBPR is also limited by existing infrastructures which are supportive of more· traditional models of research. Changes to professional development programs, funding guidelines and criteria. grant review processes and ethics requirements are needed to support increased application of this approach (Israel et al 2001). As all research resources are limited, the potential additional benefits offered by CBPR over and above a more traditional research approach need to be weighed against the potential additional costs involved. Changes to research infrastructure are unlikely to occur until the costs and
benefits of a consciously CBPR approach as compared to a more traditional research approach can be demonstrated.

This is an exploratory paper that summarises the arguments put forward to date in relation to CBPR. A research case study and an evaluation framework are then used for a conceptual analysis of differences in the potential costs and benefits of the two approaches. Firstly, the paper describes the differences between traditional and consciously CBPR approaches. The reported benefits of CBPR are then outlined, followed by a discussion of the potential costs. Finally, the potential costs are compared to the potential benefits of using a CBPR approach, using a case study of existing research.