Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making

Yost, Jennifer; Dobbins, Maureen; Traynor, Robyn; DeCorby, Kara; Workentine, Stephanie; Greco, Lori

doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-728

Cited by 94 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the Framework drew on literature available at its time of development (2012), subsequent work (e.g. Brown, 2012;Ettelt et al, 2013;Evans et al, 2013;Moat et al, 2013;Oliver et al, 2014;Panisset et al, 2012;Pitchforth et al, 2013;Yost et al, 2014) have largely confirmed previous reviews and the basis of the Framework.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy

Redman

Turner

Davies

et al. 2015

Social Science & Medicine

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent proliferation of strategies designed to increase the use of research in health policy (knowledge exchange) demands better application of contemporary conceptual understandings of how research shapes policy. Predictive models, or action frameworks, are needed to organise existing knowledge and enable a more systematic approach to the selection and testing of intervention strategies. Useful action frameworks need to meet four criteria: have a clearly articulated purpose; be informed by existing knowledge; provide an organising structure to build new knowledge; and be capable of guiding the development and testing of interventions. This paper describes the development of the SPIRIT Action Framework. A literature search and interviews with policy makers identified modifiable factors likely to influence the use of research in policy. An iterative process was used to combine these factors into a pragmatic tool which meets the four criteria. The SPIRIT Action Framework can guide conceptually-informed practical decisions in the selection and testing of interventions to increase the use of research in policy. The SPIRIT Action Framework hypothesises that a catalyst is required for the use of research, the response to which is determined by the capacity of the organisation to engage with research. Where there is sufficient capacity, a series of research engagement actions might occur that facilitate research use. These hypotheses are being tested in ongoing empirical work.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy

Redman

Turner

Davies

et al. 2015

Social Science & Medicine

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concise definition proposed by Kohatsu puts a stronger focus on participatory decision making: “evidence-based public health is the process of integrating science-based interventions with community preferences to improve the health of populations” (p. 419) (116). Particularly in Canada and Australia, the term “evidence- informed decision making” is commonly used (5, 187), in part, to emphasize that public health decisions are not based only on research but particularly need to consider political and organizational factors (179). In a similar vein, Green has argued that we not only need a focus on evidence-based practice but also on practice-based evidence (80, 81).…”

Section: Why Evidence-based Public Health Mattersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research

Brownson

Fielding

Green

2024

Annual Review of Public Health

247

281

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Timely implementation of principles of evidence-based public health (EBPH) is critical for bridging the gap between discovery of new knowledge and application. Public health organizations need sufficient capacity (the availability of resources, structures, and workforce to plan deliver and evaluate the “preventive dose” of an evidence-based intervention) to move science to practice. We review principles of EBPH, the importance of capacity building to advance evidence-based approaches, promising approaches for capacity building, and future areas for research and practice. While there is general agreement on the importance of EBPH, there is less clarity on the definition of evidence, how to find it, and how, when and where to use it. Capacity for EBPH is needed among both individuals and organizations. Capacity can be strengthened via training, use of tools, technical assistance, assessment and feedback, peer networking, and incentives. Modest investments in EBPH capacity-building will foster more effective public health practice.

show abstract

“…Although nurses' decisions regarding adherence to clinical guidelines and whether to leave or remove IV devices have been investigated and reported in the literature (Cicolini et al, ; Jeffery & Pickler, ; Johansson, Pilhammar, Khalaf, & Willman, ; Johansson, Pilhammar, & Willman, ; Palese et al, ), nurses' decision‐making regarding administration set replacement has not been previously assessed. Understanding the knowledge and practical considerations underpinning clinical decision‐making is a vital component of laying the groundwork for knowledge translation (Yost et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nurses' decision‐making about intravenous administration set replacement: A qualitative study

Ray‐Barruel

Woods

Larsen

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives To explore nurses' decision‐making regarding intravenous administration set replacement for vascular access device infusions in paediatric and adult clinical settings. Background Intravenous administration sets are routinely replaced at regular intervals in clinical practice with the goal of preventing catheter‐related bloodstream infection; however, emerging evidence is challenging traditional hang‐time durations. Nurses' perceptions and contextual factors affecting decision‐making for administration set replacement have not been assessed previously. Design Qualitative study using focus groups with contextualism methodology and inductive analysis. Method During November–December 2016, eight semi‐structured focus groups were conducted with 38 nurses at two metropolitan hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed. Two authors independently reviewed transcripts and extracted significant statements using Braun and Clarke's 7‐step method of thematic analysis. The COREQ checklist provided a framework to report the study methods, context, findings, analysis and interpretation. Results Five key themes emerged from the analysis: (a) infection prevention, (b) physical safety, (c) patient preference, (d) clinical knowledge and beliefs, and (e) workload. Administration set replacement can be a complex task, particularly when patients have multiple infusions and incompatible medications. Nurses drew on perceptions of patient preference, as well as previous experience, knowledge of peer experts and local policies, to aid their decisions. Conclusions Nurses use clinical reasoning to balance patient safety and preferences with competing workplace demands when undertaking administration set replacement. Nurses rely on previous experience, hospital and medication manufacturer policies, and peer experts to guide their practice. Relevance to clinical practice Nurses at times deviate from clinical guidelines in the interests of patient acuity, nurses' experience and workload. The findings of this study indicate nurses also balance considerations of patient preference and safety with these competing demands.

show abstract

Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making

Cited by 94 publications

References 55 publications

The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy

The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy

Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research

Nurses' decision‐making about intravenous administration set replacement: A qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About