ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2019
A mixed methods evaluation of capturing and sharing practitioner experience for improving local tobacco control strategies.
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePractitioner experience is one type of evidence that is used in public health planning and action. Yet, methods for capturing and sharing experience are under-developed. We evaluated the reach, uptake and use of an example of capturing and sharing practitioner experience from tobacco control known as documentation of practice (DoP) reports.
methodsThe participatory, mixed methods approach included the following: a document review to capture data related to the extent and how DoP reports reached the target population; an online survey to assess awareness, use and perceptions about DoP reports; and semi-structured interviews to identify and explore examples of instrumental, conceptual and symbolic use of DoP reports. The samples for the survey and interviews included tobacco control practitioners from public health units in Ontario, Canada.
resultsSeventy-three individuals participated in the survey and 10 were interviewed. Awareness of at least one DoP report was high. The most common way of learning about DoP reports was email. DoP reports focused on policy issues had highest use; these reports were used in conceptual (helped raise awareness), instrumental (directly informed local policy development) and symbolic (confirmed a choice already made) ways. DoP reports may be improved with key messages, shorter development timelines, more relevant topic selection and dissemination to audiences beyond public health.
conclusionDoP reports are useful to public health practitioners working in tobacco control within Ontario; refinements to development and dissemination processes will enhance use. Future studies and adaptations of DoP reports could help improve use of practitioner experience as one source of evidence informing public health 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.