Constructing evidence-based health promotion: Perspectives from the field

Use of research by the Australian health promotion workforce

“…In their study of HIV prevention program managers, Goldstein et al [36] found the three most important sources of research for program planning were (i) peers and colleagues (53%), (ii) local and state departments of public health (44%) and (iii) research findings (40%). Similar to previous research concluding that EBP was impacting on the work of health promotion specialists [24], in the present study 79% of participants rated research findings as 'important' or 'very important' for program planning. The same proportion of participants, however, rated all other sources of information as equally important as research findings, with the exception of staff-identified need, tradition and client request, which were reported as less important.…”

“…Qualitative research conducted in the United Kingdom with health promotion specialists (n = 25) also found general awareness of the importance of EBP and of the debates surrounding appropriate types of evidence [23]. Similarly, a survey of 20 UK health promotion specialist departments found all of them considered that the drive toward EBP was impacting on their work [24]. However, it must also be acknowledged that EBP is not without its' detractors.…”

Evidence-Based Practice and the Borders of Data in the Global Information ERA

“…Consequently, practitioners may regard local research, especially community-based research, as preferable evidence for guiding interventions than research that has been conducted elsewhere, even if it is academically rigorous (Learmonth & Watson, 1999). Conversely, there may be strong biases against local research.…”

“…However, within social work, there is no consensus as to what is appropriate evidence (MacDonald, 1997). Different stakeholders apply different standards to evidence that they are using to determine whether an intervention is effective (Giacomini, Hurley, & Stoddart, 2000) or even needed in the first place (Bradshaw, 1972;Learmonth & Watson, 1999). Hence, this article explores a range of borders that social workers may apply in selecting evidence for practice.…”

Health promotion and health education viewed as symbiotic paradigms: bridging the theory and practice gap between them

“…They sometimes adopt the stance that Robertson (2001, p. 294) describes as ‘a neo‐Luddite diatribe against biotechnology.’ The ‘holy grail’ of evidence‐based medicine, particularly associated with randomized control trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, has come under vehement attack by the health promotion community (Williams & Popay, 1997; Britton et al. , 1998; Learmonth & Watson, 1999; Tones, 2000). Consequently, the term medical is sometimes used as a dismissive rather than a descriptor in the context of health promotion (Butler‐Jones, 2000).…”