ArticleJBI evidence implementation2025
Evidence-informed decision-making in public health in Canada: a qualitative exploration.
Article in JBI evidence implementation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEvidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) plays a vital role in public health practice. Canada has invested in support for evidence-informed approaches in public health. Despite growing expectations for EIDM, evidence integration has not been thoroughly evaluated.
objectiveThis study explores EIDM within Canadian public health organizations before the COVID-19 pandemic. A secondary objective is to explore how EIDM in public health was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsUsing a qualitative descriptive approach, data were collected and analyzed from interviews with public health professionals across Canada.
resultsFrom interviews with 20 participants in four Canadian provinces and one territory, all participants noted that EIDM was valued, but there was considerable variation in implementation. Participants reported differences in consistency of evidence use, resources available at their public health organizations to support EIDM, and staff knowledge and skills in EIDM. Leadership emerged as a strong influencer of EIDM; however, leadership investment in EIDM varied. Changes in evidence use during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed an urgency for decision-making amidst an influx of evidence and reallocated staff roles.
conclusionsDespite gains in the recognized value of EIDM, gaps remain in the integration of evidence into decision-making and adequate resource investment to support EIDM. Time, resources, and skills to adapt processes and implement EIDM are needed for public health organizations in Canada to fully integrate EIDM into all aspects of public health decision-making. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A249.
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.