Public Health Decision‐Makers' Informational Needs and Preferences for Receiving Research Evidence

Abstract

Although consensus exists among participants concerning the definition of evidence based public health decision-making, ongoing efforts are required to continue to promote the use of research evidence in program planning and public health policy. It is also important to continue to improve the ease with which public health decision-makers access systematic reviews, as well as to ensure the relevance and applicability of the results to the practice setting.

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

“…p. 157 91 While many theories and models seek to explain how and why knowledge is or is not utilised, 70,86 gaps still exist, 86,92 and sometimes precious resources are spent on research that is never utilised. 60,61 Innvaer et al…”

Increasing capacity for knowledge translation: understanding how some researchers engage policy makers

“…For example, researchers are encouraged to consider how to frame the research message in relation to a specific audience (Knott and Wildavsky, 1980;Lavis et al, 2003). As well, summaries of systematic reviews or primary research, accompanied by recommendations for policy, are recommended for more effective utilization of research (Dobbins et al, 2007). The science push model is characterized as a linear, sequential model, where the research process and findings are generated (in isolation) by researchers, with an underlying assumption that the science will speak for itself or some consideration may be given to "getting the word out.…”

“…Reviews of studies demonstrate that face-to-face interaction is vital for the uptake of research and knowledge (Innvaer et al, 2002), yet there is minimal empirical guidance about effective strategies that can be used to bring these two communities closer together (Mitton et al, 2007). A further complication is that policy decisions are determined by a variety of distinct pieces of knowledge, including past experiences, beliefs, values, skills, resources, legislation, protocols, patient preferences and research results (Dobbins, 2007). Policy-makers have lamented the fact that researchers fail to appreciate this policy context, which perhaps contributes to the inability to bring research into the policy-maker's domain.…”

Pursuing Enterprise Risk Management: A Local Road Map for Canadian Healthcare Leaders

“…Throughout the three stages of this thesis, the importance and critical nature of stakeholder engagement was expressly built into the methodology; as it is the individual health care leaders who are the key contributors to not only the nature of the problem, but also the primary means of implementing change (Dobbins et al, 2007).…”

“…Specifically, the data was characterized according to major conceptual constructs derived from the literature and compared thematically to identified challenges, barriers, sustainability, positive/negative effects, and viability of organizational risk management models for strategic decision making within a Canadian health care setting (see Appendix 5). The resulting Model translates the key findings of the preceding stages and uses the accumulated evidence to construct a roadmap for health care leaders to follow when considering ERM.Throughout the three stages of this thesis, the importance and critical nature of stakeholder engagement was expressly built into the methodology; as it is the individual health care leaders J a m e s H a n e y 201 2 15 | P a g e who are the key contributors to not only the nature of the problem, but also the primary means of implementing change (Dobbins et al, 2007). J a m e s H a n e y 201 2 16 | P a g e…”