ArticleBMC public health2014
Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making.
Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Challenges of using evidence in managerial decision-making of the primary health care system.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- The Role of the Nurse Scientist as a Knowledge Broker.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2019Pooled it
- Exploring the function and effectiveness of knowledge brokers as facilitators of knowledge translation in health-related settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis.Implementation science : IS · 2015Pooled it
- Fostering cross-community collaboration to advance pandemic and epidemic intelligence.BMC proceedings · 2026Article
- The PIECES multi-site comparative case study protocol: mixed methods implementation evaluation of adapting, implementing and tailoring primary cancer prevention programmes in diverse contexts.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Interventions to Enable or Improve Evidence-Informed Decision Making in Public Health and Preventive Medicine: A Scoping Review.AJPM focus · 2026Review
- Facilitating collaboration between public health researchers and policymakers: a scoping review of global practices, barriers and facilitators.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Development and testing of the capacity of organisations for system practices scale.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025Article
- Evidence-informed decision-making in public health in Canada: a qualitative exploration.JBI evidence implementation · 2025Article
- Knowledge management and knowledge brokering in the Health Promotion Offices in Hungary: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Bridging the gap between research evidence and its implementation in public health practice: case studies of embedded research model.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Implementing evidence ecosystems in the public health service: Development of a framework for designing tailored training programs.PloS one · 2024Review
- Co-designing drug alerts for health and community workers for an emerging early warning system in Victoria, Australia.Harm reduction journal · 2023Article
- EIDM training as a key intervention among researchers to enhance research uptake and policy engagement: an evaluation study.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- Municipal officials' perspectives on policymaking for addressing obesity and health equity.Evidence & policy : a journal of research, debate and practice · 2023Article
- Research gaps and opportunities in precision nutrition: an NIH workshop report.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Article
- User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of Technology Interventions in Addressing Social Isolation, Connectedness, and Loneliness in Older Adults: Systematic Umbrella Review.JMIR aging · 2022Review
- Computational phenotyping of obstructive airway diseases: protocol for a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.
methodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.
resultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.
conclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.
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.