ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2004
Evidence based practice in population health: a regional survey to inform workforce development and organisational change.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Data-driven quality improvement in low-and middle-income country health systems: lessons from seven years of implementation experience across Mozambique, Rwanda, and Zambia.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- A survey tool for measuring evidence-based decision making capacity in public health agencies.BMC health services research · 2012Article
- SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 16: Using research evidence in balancing the pros and cons of policies.Health research policy and systems · 2009Article
- Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers.Australia and New Zealand health policy · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo assess current capacity to implement evidence based practice (EBP) in population health.
designPostal survey of a regional population health workforce in Sydney, Australia.
settingDivision of Population Health, South Western Sydney Area Health Service.
participants104 population health staff (response rate: 73%). MAIN
resultsIn the sample of regional population health practitioners, views about the current promotion of EBP were positive. Non-medical respondents with less that Masters degree were more likely to report "high self assessed need" to increase their capacity in EBP (p = 0.022). Confidence in understanding of EBP terminology was not associated with seniority but with highest level of education reached (p<0.000) and having medical qualifications (p<0.000). Occupational category was not associated with respondents' self assessed "need for evidence", "need for EBP skills" or "need to increase their capacity in EBP" in their current position. The proportion of participants "strongly" supporting implementation of a colorectal cancer screening programme whose benefit was expressed as relative risk reduction was greater than that so supporting a programme whose benefit was expressed as number needed to screen (p = 0.008). Most respondents referred to their immediate managers when seeking support for EBP.
conclusionsThe findings provide a quantitative baseline for capacity building through workplace programmes. Managerial commitment has been increased and performance development is now underway.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.