ArticleBMC public health2025
Practitioner research readiness in public health: findings from three co-produced surveys within local authority practice settings in England.
Article in BMC public health, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based practice in public health is essential for delivering appropriate and effective interventions to improve population health. Robust research underpins evidence-based public health, and it is therefore vital that local public health practitioners have sufficient knowledge and skills to apply research as well as undertake research within their locality.
methodsThis study aimed to assess individual research skills, knowledge, and confidence, as well as organisational support for research. Three local authority public health teams in England administered an internal service evaluation survey to their staff. Each survey included both closed (quantitative) and open ended (qualitative) items and obtained demographic information. Data from each participating local authority team were combined within a secondary data analysis utilising a parallel mixed method approach, reporting descriptive statistics, and deriving qualitative themes.
resultsAcross the three participating teams a total of 228 practitioners were invited and 109 responded (48% response rate). Both quantitative and qualitative results showed a clear recognition of the value of research to public health practice, both in general (66% indicated relevance to their practice), and as a method to understand local population health needs. Practitioners also wished to have more research involvement (81% reported research should be part of their CPD) but reported a current low level of research engagement and activity (36% had reported previous involvement over the previous 3 years). Recognised barriers to research engagement included, at a practitioner level: a lack of research skills resulting in low research confidence; time and capacity; organisational barriers such as resource provision (e.g. training, scholarship); and a lack of awareness of existing support structures.
conclusionsPublic health practitioners recognise the value of research to their practice but require greater support (both from within local authority structures and externally) to create the framework to enable sustainable evidence-based 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.