Combler l’écart entre les données probantes et l’action

Jetha, Nina; Robinson, Ken; Wilkerson, Tricia; Dubois, Nancy; Turgeon, Vincent; DesMeules, Marie

doi:10.1007/bf03405258

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These included four interview studies [19] – [22] ; two interview and focus group discussion studies [24] – [27] ; two focussed workshops studies [26] – [27] ; one study based in document analysis [28] ; and six case studies using a combination of interview and review of secondary material [28] – [30] , or interview, review of secondary material and observation [32] – [34] . The remaining three studies employed a quantitative survey design [35] – [37] .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study provided no details of interview methods or the number of participants [34] . One of the quantitative studies [37] did not provide sufficient information to make an assessment of methodological quality. The remainder addressed most of the methodological criteria for quantitative studies (see Table 3 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence on how to overcome these barriers to the use of research evidence in public health decision making is less extensive. Included studies reported a request for improved communication and sustained dialogue between researchers and end users [27] , [29] , [31] – [32] , [37] . In one study, the importance of trust, between researchers and policy makers was emphasized [34] .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the challenge of choosing the “right” approach and criteria in assessing the health promotion and disease prevention interventions still remains ( 15 , 16 ). This was recognized as one of the important challenges at the EuroHealthNet Thematic Working Group on health promotion and disease prevention program registries ( 17 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluator’s alignment as an important indicator of adequacy of the criteria and assessment procedure for recognizing the good practice in public health

Vinko,

Lesnik,

Radoš Krnel

2024

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPublic health interventions aim to reduce the burden of chronic non-communicable diseases. Implementing evidence-based interventions that are proven to be successful and effective is widely recognized as the best approach to addressing public health challenges. To avoid the development and implementation of less effective or successful or even harmful practices, clear criteria for the assessment of practices, that consider different dimensions of the interventions in public health, are needed. The main aim of the research was to test our Criteria and assessment procedure for recognizing good practices in the field of public health by estimating the consistency between the evaluators and thereby gaining insight into the adequacy and reliability of the criteria as well as to check how the evaluators understand the criteria and methodology and if it is properly used in assessing the interventions.MethodsThe assessment of the interventions took place from 2021 to 2022. The individual evaluator’s scores on the scale from 1 to 5 for each specific sub-criterion were collected, which was followed by a panel discussion to reach a final score for each sub-criterion. The inter-rater agreement was measured using percent overall agreement and Fleiss’ kappa coefficient.ResultsWe found moderate inter-rater agreement on the level of the assessment criteria group. The lowest agreement was observed for the effectiveness and efficiency sub-criteria group, which also received the lowest scores from the evaluators. Challenges identified with the scoring process were due to the descriptive 1 to 5 scale and the varying specificity of the criteria.ConclusionThe results showed that studying consistency between evaluators can highlight areas for improvement or adjustment in the assessment criteria and enhance the quality of the assessment instrument. Therefore, such analysis would be useful part of both newly and well-established health promotion and prevention program registries.

show abstract

Exploring the Factors Influencing the Success of Public Policies: Evidence from Iran’s Higher Education

Abbasi

Hassanpoor

2021

Public Organiz Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combler l’écart entre les données probantes et l’action

Cited by 12 publications

References 4 publications

The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review

The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review

Evaluator’s alignment as an important indicator of adequacy of the criteria and assessment procedure for recognizing the good practice in public health

Exploring the Factors Influencing the Success of Public Policies: Evidence from Iran’s Higher Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About