Use and value of systematic reviews in English local authority public health: a qualitative study

Abstract

Background: Responsibility for public health in England transferred from the National Health Service to local authorities in 2013, representing a different decision-making environment. Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence for clinical decision-making but little is known about their use in local government public health. This study aimed to explore the extent to which public health decision-makers in local authorities engage with systematic reviews and how they do so. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior public health practitioners (n = 14) in Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities. Sampling was purposive and involved contacting Directors of Public Health directly and snowballing through key contacts. Face-to-face or telephone interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework Method. Results: Public health practitioners described using systematic reviews directly in decision-making and engaging with them more widely in a range of ways, often through a personal commitment to professional development. They saw themselves as having a role to advocate for the use of rigorous evidence, including systematic reviews, in the wider local authority. Systematic reviews were highly valued in principle and public health practitioners had relevant skills to find and appraise them. However, the extent of use varied by individual and local authority and was limited by the complexity of decision-making and various barriers. Barriers included that there were a limited number of systematic reviews available on certain public health topics, such as the wider determinants of health, and that the narrow focus of reviews was not reflective of complex public health decisions facing local authorities. Reviews were used alongside a range of other evidence types, including grey literature. The source of evidence was often considered an indicator of quality, with specific organisations, such as Public Health England, NICE and Cochrane, particularly trusted. Conclusions: Research use varies and should be considered within the specific decision-making and political context. There is a need for systematic reviews to be more reflective of the decisions facing local authority public health teams.

Supporting and enabling health research in a local authority (SERLA): an exploratory study

“…These findings concur with previous studies highlighting barriers to evidence use, including access (not reported among public health participants), timeliness of research evidence, and competence in finding and appraising evidence and the political context of the local authority [ 6 , 8 – 10 ]. Multiple perspectives on what counts as evidence exist; local knowledge and evidence is prioritised, and anecdotal evidence is valued [ 23 ]. Evidence use varied between individuals and departments, with wider engagement among public health specialists reflecting an existing research culture [ 23 ].…”

“…Multiple perspectives on what counts as evidence exist; local knowledge and evidence is prioritised, and anecdotal evidence is valued [ 23 ]. Evidence use varied between individuals and departments, with wider engagement among public health specialists reflecting an existing research culture [ 23 ]. COVID-19 disrupted siloed ways of working, strengthening and opening potential collaborations within the local authority.…”

‘Evidence’ within local authority decision making

“…There has been a long term challenge in Public Health evidence services has between quality and relevance – much of the ‘best’ evidence having little replicability on local levels and the most relevant evidence deemed very poor traditional quality (South & Lorenc, 2020), which has become even more apparent during COVID‐19 pandemic. Much of the best evidence, especially early in the first pandemic wave, was not based on high quality research but on best practice, expert opinion and lived experience shared in informal settings and non‐traditional publication routes such as social media, experts’ personal blogs or informal communities of practice.…”

Wissenstranslation am Beispiel Bewegungsförderung von älteren Menschen: Wie gelangen wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse in die kommunale Praxis?

“…gen, Standardarbeitsweisen und anekdotischen Erzählungen basieren [9][10][11], die teilweise im Gegensatz zu wissenschaftlichen Prinzipien [11,12] und einer evidenzinformierten Entscheidungsfindung [1] stehen. Die Berücksichtigung von WE in der Praxis hat den Vorteil, dass mit einer höheren Wahrscheinlichkeit wirksame Public-Health-Maßnahmen durchgeführt, Opportunitätskosten gesenkt und folglich öffentliche und private Ressourcen effizienter genutzt werden können [9].…”