Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41940210›Full record

ReviewAJPM focus2026

Interventions to Enable or Improve Evidence-Informed Decision Making in Public Health and Preventive Medicine: A Scoping Review.

Emily Groot, Jessica Pelley, Anne-Marie Boylan, David Nunan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AJPM focus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emily GrootSection of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Clinical Sciences Division, NOSM University, Sudbury, Canada.
Jessica PelleyDepartment of Family Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Anne-Marie BoylanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
David NunanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Public health and preventive medicine is the branch of medicine that implements population-level health interventions. Public health and preventive medicine specialists practice at the intersection of medicine and public health. These 2 disciplines approach the application of evidence to decision making differently, and it is unclear how public health and preventive medicine specialists are trained to navigate between these approaches. To better understand the interventions available to support public health and preventive medicine physicians in making evidence-informed decisions in this space, the authors conducted a scoping review to summarize planned or implemented interventions that support or are intended to support evidence-informed decision making in public health and preventive medicine practice. Methods: In March and April 2025, the authors searched multiple databases and prespecified websites to identify published and unpublished academic and gray literature reports published in English between 1992 and March 2025 that described interventions intended to enable or improve evidence-informed decision making in public health and preventive medicine practice. Data extracted included, where reported, publication date, authors, title, publication source, actual or intended participants, participant characteristics, intervention characteristics, funding sources, and intervention outcome. Results: The authors identified 246 records, 234 through database and website searches and 12 through citation searches, of which 9 were duplicates. Ultimately, the authors included 17 reports that described 7 unique interventions in this scoping review. The majority (11 of 17) of reports described interventions that took place in the U.S., and most (9 of 17) reports described an iteration of the Evidence-Based Public Health Course. All interventions reported success, most often in terms of positive participant reaction, self-reported participant learning, or participant behaviour change. One intervention, an organizational strategic plan that supported evidence-informed decision-making capacity, reported organizational- and population-level impacts. Discussion: This scoping review did not identify any interventions specifically targeting evidence-informed decision making in public health and preventive medicine, but there was some indication that there are differences between the types of evidence that physicians value most and those by other public health professionals. The components of evidence-informed decision making in public health implemented or taught in the interventions identified in this scoping review differ from the components of evidence-based medicine taught in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, which has implications for physicians working in public health.

Indexed as

clinical decision makingeducationevidence-based practicemedicalPublic healthpublic health professional

Identifiers

PMID41940210
PMCPMC13049646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.