Trial reportImplementation science : IS2014
Understanding evidence: a statewide survey to explore evidence-informed public health decision-making in a local government setting.
Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges of using evidence in managerial decision-making of the primary health care system.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies for knowledge exchange for action to address place-based determinants of health inequalities: an umbrella review.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Research evidence use in local government-led public health interventions: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- Barriers, Facilitators, Process and Sources of Evidence for Evidence-Based Management among Health Care Managers: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2018Pooled it
- Assessing institutional capacities to demand and use nutrition data for decision-making in Nigeria's health sector: A mixed-methods study.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- 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
- Use of evidence to inform regional primary health care planning in Australia.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Article
- Does the site of research evidence generation impact on its translation to clinical practice? A protocol paper.PloS one · 2024Article
- Global issues, local action: exploring local governments use of research in "tackling climate change and its impacts on health" in Victoria, Australia.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Factors that influence evidence-informed meso-level regional primary health care planning: a qualitative examination and conceptual framework.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Dissemination of knowledge from Cochrane Public Health reviews: a bibliographic study.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Environment and child well-being: A scoping review of reviews to guide policies.Health promotion perspectives · 2023Article
- Enabling local political committees to support the implementation of evidence-based practice - a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Cocreating evidence-informed health equity policy with community.Health services research · 2022Review
- Missed opportunities for improving oral health in rural Victoria: The role of municipal public health planning in improving oral health.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2022Review
- A framework of evidence-based decision-making in health system management: a best-fit framework synthesis.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Article
- "It's good to feel like you're doing something": a qualitative study examining state health department employees' views on why ineffective programs continue to be implemented in the USA.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM) competence measure.PloS one · 2022Article
- Utilizing Causal Loop Diagramming to Explore a Research and Evaluation Capacity Building Partnership.Frontiers in public health · 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
9 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe value placed on types of evidence within decision-making contexts is highly dependent on individuals, the organizations in which the work and the systems and sectors they operate in. Decision-making processes too are highly contextual. Understanding the values placed on evidence and processes guiding decision-making is crucial to designing strategies to support evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). This paper describes how evidence is used to inform local government (LG) public health decisions.
methodsThe study used mixed methods including a cross-sectional survey and interviews. The Evidence-Informed Decision-Making Tool (EvIDenT) survey was designed to assess three key domains likely to impact on EIDM: access, confidence, and organizational culture. Other elements included the usefulness and influence of sources of evidence (people/groups and resources), skills and barriers, and facilitators to EIDM. Forty-five LGs from Victoria, Australia agreed to participate in the survey and up to four people from each organization were invited to complete the survey (n = 175). To further explore definitions of evidence and generate experiential data on EIDM practice, key informant interviews were conducted with a range of LG employees working in areas relevant to public health.
resultsIn total, 135 responses were received (75% response rate) and 13 interviews were conducted. Analysis revealed varying levels of access, confidence and organizational culture to support EIDM. Significant relationships were found between domains: confidence, culture and access to research evidence. Some forms of evidence (e.g. community views) appeared to be used more commonly and at the expense of others (e.g. research evidence). Overall, a mixture of evidence (but more internal than external evidence) was influential in public health decision-making in councils. By comparison, a mixture of evidence (but more external than internal evidence) was deemed to be useful in public health decision-making.
conclusionsThis study makes an important contribution to understanding how evidence is used within the public health LG context.
trial registrationACTRN12609000953235.
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.