Evidence-based public health: what does it offer developing countries?

The global burden of disease and illness is primarily situated in developing countries. As developing countries have limited resources, it is particularly important to invest in public health and health promotion strategies that are effective. Systematic reviews are central to evidence-based public health and health promotion practice and policy. This paper discusses issues surrounding the relevance of evidence-based public health and systematic reviews to the health of developing countries. It argues that there is a lack of systematic reviews relevant to the health priorities of developing countries; many interventions reviewed can not be implemented in resource-poor situations; and, a limited amount of primary research is conducted in developing countries. The paper further argues that improvements in public health are determined not only by effective health services and interventions, but through an approach that includes other sectors and influences broader structural and systematic barriers to health. Given the social complexity of human development, and the inter-sections amongst different development goals, there is no question that gains in developing country public health are unlikely to emerge from systematic reviews alone, but will require decisions about inter-sectoral collaboration and social policy initiatives. Nonetheless, evidence around intervention effectiveness has an important role to play in addressing health priorities in developing countries and resource-poor areas. The public health evidence base urgently needs strengthening, with dedicated effort towards increasing the relevance of primary evidence and systematic reviews.

A glossary for evidence based public health

This glossary seeks to define and explain some of the main concepts underpinning evidence based public health. It draws on the published literature, experience gained over several years analysis of the topic, and discussions with public health colleagues, including researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and students.

Translating research for evidence-based public health: key concepts and future directions

Applying research to guide evidence-based practice is an ongoing and significant challenge for public health. Developments in the emerging field of ‘translation’ have focused on different aspects of the problem, resulting in competing frameworks and terminology. In this paper the scope of ‘translation’ in public health is defined, and four related but conceptually different ‘translation processes’ that support evidence-based practice are outlined: (1) reviewing the transferability of evidence to new settings, (2) translation research, (3) knowledge translation, and (4) knowledge translation research. Finally, an integrated framework is presented to illustrate the relationship between these domains, and priority areas for further development and empirical research are identified.

Knowledge translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in public health decision making in local government: intervention design and implementation plan

Background: 

Community-based public health: an Online Decision Support Systems : for Logan city, Australia

Introduction Among the many requirements of establishing community health, a healthy urban environment stands out as significant one. A healthy urban environment constantly changes and improves community well-being and expands community resources. The promotion efforts for such an environment, therefore, must include the creation of structures and processes that actively work to dismantle existing community inequalities. In general, these processes are hard to manage; therefore, they require reliable planning and decision support systems. Current and previous practices justify that the use of decision support systems in planning for healthy communities have significant impacts on the communities. These impacts include but are not limited to: increasing collaboration between stakeholders and the general public; improving the accuracy and quality of the decision making process; enhancing healthcare services; and improving data and information availability for health decision makers and service planners. Considering the above stated reasons, this study investigates the challenges and opportunities of planning for healthy communities with the specific aim of examining the effectiveness of participatory planning and decision systems in supporting the planning for such communities. Methods This study introduces a recently developed methodology, which is based on an online participatory decision support system. This new decision support system contributes to solve environmental and community health problems, and to plan for healthy communities. The system also provides a powerful and effective platform for stakeholders and interested members of the community to establish an empowered society and a transparent and participatory decision making environment. Results The paper discusses the preliminary findings from the literature review of this decision support system in a case study of Logan City, Queensland. Conclusion The paper concludes with future research directions and applicability of this decision support system in health service planning elsewhere.

Enhancing capacity for 'systematic' thinking in public health

The concept of being evidence based or evidence informed is widely acknowledged as an important component of decision-making. It is perhaps most universally referred to in medicine, however has extended into many other disciplines over the past decade, including public health. Evidence-based public health has been defined as the ‘conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of communities and populations in the domain of health protection, disease prevention, health maintenance and improvement (health promotion)’.1 More recent literature favours the use of the term evidence informed over evidence based to acknowledge the varying influences on decisions in this complex field.2,3 Evidence-informed activities in any discipline require a specific set of skills in critical thinking. These skills include identifying the questions to be resolved, collecting relevant evidence, and assessing, synthesizing and distilling evidence in a way that can inform the set of activities to be undertaken as a result.

Evidence-based mental health nursing in Australia: our history and our future

This paper will develop a discussion related to evidence-based knowledge for mental health nursing, arguing for a historical component to be included in the comprehensive degree programme that will offer significant insights into mental health nursing knowledge from historical information and constructing implications for contemporary practice. Our understanding of the present is clearer by this looking back and forth and by adding meaning (and what the meanings mean) to what historically preceded. It allows the history of psychiatry to be a much more productive, useful, and a continual source of wisdom for the here and now. This blending of past knowledge with contemporary inquiry can offer depth in mental health nursing practices by forming a context for practice for the beginning nurse practitioner.

Research methods, evidence and public health

In theory, our research questions should drive our choice of method. In practice, we know this is not always the case. At various stages of the research process different factors may apply to restrict the choice of research method. These filters might include a series of inter-related factors such as the political context of the research, the disciplinary affiliation of the researchers, the research setting and peer-review. We suggest that as researchers conduct research and encounter the various filters they come to know the methods that are more likely to survive the filtering process. In future projects they may favour these methods. Public health problems and research questions may increasingly be framed in the terms that can be addressed by a restricted array of methods. Innovative proposals - where new methods are applied to old problems, old methods to new areas of inquiry and high-quality interdisciplinary research - may be unlikely to survive the processes of filtering. This may skew the public health knowledge base, limiting public health action. We argue that we must begin to investigate the process of research. We need to document how and why particular methods are chosen to investigate particular sets of public health problems. This will help us understand how we know what we know in public health and help us plan how we may more appropriately draw upon a range of research methods.

"Tell us something new!" : the response of planning and transport professionals to public health guidance on the built environment and physical activity

A large proportion of non-communicable disease can be attributed to modifiable risk factors such as poor nutrition and physical inactivity. We present data on planning and transport practitioners' perceptions and responses to government public health guidance aimed at modifying environmental factors to promote physical activity. This study was informed by questions on the role of evidence-based guidance, the views of professionals towards the guidance, the links between guidance and existing legislation and policy and the practicality of guidelines. A key informant 'snowball' sampling technique was used to recruit participants from the main professional planning organisations across England. Seventy-six people were interviewed in eight focus groups. We found that evidence-based public health guidance is a new voice in urban and town planning, although much of the advice is already reflected by the 'accepted wisdom' of these professions. Evidence-based health guidance could be a powerful driver affecting planning practice, but other legislated planning guidance may take priority for planning and transport professionals.

Folate fortification : a case study of public health policy-making

Introducing Evidence Based Health Policy: Problems and Possibilities, Section 1: What is the Problem?, 1: Competing Rationalities: Evidence based Health Policy, 2: Beyond Two Communities, Section 2: What does Evidence Mean?, 3: Evidence based Medicine - The Medical Profession and Health Policy, 4: Mind The Gap: Assessing the Quality of Evidence for Public Health Problems, 5: Health Policy and Normative Analysis: Ethics, Evidence and Politics, 6: What is New in Health Information? Evidence for Health Consumers and Policy Making, 7: From Evidence based Medicine to Evidence based Public Health, Section 3: Policy Case Studies, 8: The Viagra Affair: Evidence as the Terrain for Competing Partners, 9: Folate Fortification: A Case Study of Public Health Policy-Making in a Food Regulation Setting, 10: The Supply and Safety of Blood and Blood Products - Evidence, Risk and Policy, 11: The Development of Nurse Practitioner Policy, 12: Creating Healthy Public Policy for Oral Health: How was the Evidence Used?, 13: Regulation of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Victoria, 14: The Victorian Primary Health Care Reforms: A Case Study of Evidence-based Policy Making, 15: Evidence-based Practice in the Australian Drug Policy Community, 16: Challenging the Evidence - Women's Health Policy in Australia, 17: Evidence and Aboriginal Health Policy, 18: The Limits to Technical Rationality in the Health Inequalities Policy Process, 19: Evidence-based policy: A Technocratic Wish in a Political World, Section 4: Is the transfer of evidence into policy possible?, 20: The Community Model of Research Transfer, 21: Getting Research Transfer into Policy and Practice in Maternity Care, 22: Improving the Research and Policy Partnership: An Agenda for Research Transfer and Governance, 23: Framing and Taming 'Wicked' Problems

Working at the nexus between public health policy, practice and research : dynamics of knowledge sharing in the Netherlands

Background
Joining the domains of practice, research and policy is an important aspect of boosting the quality performance required to tackle complex public health problems. “Joining domains” implies a departure from the linear and technocratic knowledge-translation approach. Integrating the practice, research and policy triangle means knowing its elements, appreciating the barriers, identifying possible cooperation strategies and studying strategy effectiveness under specified conditions.
This article examines the dynamic process of developing an Academic Collaborative Centre for Public Health in the Netherlands, with the objective of achieving that the three domains of policy, practice and research become working partners on an equal footing.
Method
An interpretative hermeneutic approach was used to interpret the phenomenon of collaboration at the nexus between the three domains. The project was explicitly grounded in current organizational culture and routines, applied to nexus action. In the process of examination, we used both quantitative (e.g. records) and qualitative data (e.g., interviews and observations). The data were interpreted using the Actor-Network, Institutional Re-Design and Blurring the Boundaries theories.
Results
Results show commitment at strategic level. At the tactical level, however, managers were inclined to prioritize daily routine, while the policy domain remained absent. At the operational level, practitioners learned to do PhD research in real-life practice and researchers became acquainted with problems of practice and policy, resulting in new research initiatives.
Conclusion
We conclude that working at the nexus is an ongoing process of formation and reformation. Strategies based on Institutional Re-Design theories in particular might help to more actively stimulate managers’ involvement to establish mutually supportive networks.

Understanding evidence: a statewide survey to explore evidence-informed public health decision-making in a local government setting

 Background: The value placed on types of evidence within decision-making contexts is highly dependent on individuals, the organizations in which the work and the systems and sectors they operate in. Decision-making processes too are highly contextual. Understanding the values placed on evidence and processes guiding decision-making is crucial to designing strategies to support evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). This paper describes how evidence is used to inform local government (LG) public health decisions.
Methods: The study used mixed methods including a cross-sectional survey and interviews. The Evidence-Informed Decision-Making Tool (EvIDenT) survey was designed to assess three key domains likely to impact on EIDM: access, confidence, and organizational culture. Other elements included the usefulness and influence of sources of evidence (people/groups and resources), skills and barriers, and facilitators to EIDM. Forty-five LGs from Victoria, Australia agreed to participate in the survey and up to four people from each organization were invited to complete the survey (n = 175). To further explore definitions of evidence and generate experiential data on EIDM practice, key informant interviews were conducted with a range of LG employees working in areas relevant to public health.
Results: In total, 135 responses were received (75% response rate) and 13 interviews were conducted. Analysis revealed varying levels of access, confidence and organizational culture to support EIDM. Significant relationships were found between domains: confidence, culture and access to research evidence. Some forms of evidence (e.g. community views) appeared to be used more commonly and at the expense of others (e.g. research evidence). Overall, a mixture of evidence (but more internal than external evidence) was influential in public health decision-making in councils. By comparison, a mixture of evidence (but more external than internal evidence) was deemed to be useful in public health decision-making.
Conclusions: This study makes an important contribution to understanding how evidence is used within the public health LG context.