scholarly journals A new tool to assess community-level evidence to inform public health decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Clark ◽  
S Snelling ◽  
J Beyers ◽  
C Howarth ◽  
S Neil-Sztramko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Community Level ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Background As public health responds to evolving challenges around the globe, it is critical to draw on community-level evidence to inform decisions on emerging needs. There are existing tools for assessing the quality of research evidence, but none that explicitly focus on quality assessment of evidence from community sources, including local health status and ever-changing community and political preferences and actions. Methods The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) in Canada has developed new tools, called Quality Assessment of Community Evidence (QACE), to help public health decision makers assess the quality of community evidence. The QACE tools were drafted through extensive review of existing frameworks, tools and measures for appraising population health and community evidence, and diverse key informants. We identified three consistent themes that became the core dimensions in these tools. By using the QACE tools, practitioners can answer the question: “Is the quality of this evidence about local context, community needs and political preferences good enough to influence decision making?” Results The QACE tools provide probing questions for each of three dimensions: relevant, trustworthy and equity-informed. Supplementary resources help users delve more deeply into different aspects of quality assessment. The QACE tools are intended for public health practitioners who provide and use evidence to support or make decisions about public health practice and policy, including public health practitioners, senior leaders, policy makers and funders. Conclusions The QACE tool is a new addition to the public health toolbox for evidence-informed decision making, providing questions to ask about evidence from community sources. By using the tool as part of a decision-making process, public health practitioners can be assured that their decisions are based on the best-available evidence for their communities. Key messages The new Quality Assessment of Community Evidence (QACE) tools fill the gap in assessing quality of community-level evidence for public health decision-makers. Community evidence, including local health status and needs and community and political preferences and actions, should be assessed for quality in three critical domains.

scholarly journals The NCCMT’s dynamic model for evidence-informed public health

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Clark ◽  
S Neil-Sztramko ◽  
M Dobbins
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Local Data ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Structured Approach

Abstract Issue It is well accepted that public health decision makers should use the best available research evidence in their decision-making process. However, research evidence alone is insufficient to inform public health decision making. Description of the problem As new challenges to public health emerge, there can be a paucity of high quality research evidence to inform decisions on new topics. Public health decision makers must combine various sources of evidence with their public health expertise to make evidence-informed decisions. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) has developed a model which combines research evidence with other critical sources of evidence that can help guide decision makers in evidence-informed decision making. Results The NCCMT's model for evidence-informed public health combines findings from research evidence with local data and context, community and political preferences and actions and evidence on available resources. The model has been widely used across Canada and worldwide, and has been integrated into many public health organizations' decision-making processes. The model is also used for teaching an evidence-informed public health approach in Masters of Public Health programs around the globe. The model provides a structured approach to integrating evidence from several critical sources into public health decision making. Use of the model helps ensure that important research, contextual and preference information is sought and incorporated. Lessons Next steps for the model include development of a tool to facilitate synthesis of evidence across all four domains. Although Indigenous knowledges are relevant for public health decision making and should be considered as part of a complete assessment the current model does not capture Indigenous knowledges. Key messages Decision making in public health requires integrating the best available evidence, including research findings, local data and context, community and political preferences and available resources. The NCCMT’s model for evidence-informed public health provides a structured approach to integrating evidence from several critical sources into public health decision making.

ETHICAL ANALYSIS IN PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: A MULTI-SECTORAL MIXED-METHODS STUDY

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Pakes B Upshur
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Health Practice ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Ethical Awareness ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Value Judgements ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Rationale: All decisions in public health practice involve implicit value judgements, and many involve explicit reference to ethical principles. Despite the increased awareness, interest and literature in Public Health Ethics in the past decade, there remains little understanding of what public health practitioners or trainees mean by ethics, what meta-ethical foundations shape their approach to ethical dilemmas, and what prior training in ethics they have had or wish to have. This study aims to answer some of these questions and will serve as the basis for the development of resources to aid public health decision-making. Method: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from public health practitioners by means of paper and web-based surveys, as well as structured interviews. Data was coded and analysed using SPSS 15. Results: 16/20 trainees, 70/150 Canadian practitioners, and 508/2058 American practitioners responded to the survey; 10 interviews were conducted. There was remarkable heterogeneity of responses regarding prioritization of values and meta-ethical justification of ethical norms. Respondents reported little training in ethics and considerable in enhancing their skills. Conflict between ethical imperatives and the law were a prominent feature of American, but not Canadian respondents. Conclusions: Public Health practitioners hold a variety of disparate views regarding ethics in public health. These translate into different understandings of the goals and means of public health, with far reaching implications in all spheres of practice. A Public Health Ethical Reflection tool was developed to enhance ethical awareness in goal setting, planning and implementation of public health interventions.

scholarly journals Contributions in the field of Public Health for decision-making in health

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luiz Antônio Tavares Neves
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Motor Development ◽  
Growth And Development ◽  
Human Growth ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Scientific World ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Human Growth And Development

  Brazil has made a wide development and contribution in the field of Public Health. These contributions have maximized public health decision-making, which is a factor of great importance for the maintenance of health of a given population, either in the prevention of disease, as is the case of immunizations or with actions in Health Promotion, improving the quality of life of the affected population. Thus, the Journal of Human Growth and Development has contributed enormously to the dissemination of knowledge, not only in Brazil but also in the world making a major effort with its publications in English which is the preferred language of the modern scientific world. It was evidenced the importance of research in the investigation of better ways to obtain the public health of a given community, bringing discussion of themes that involve aspects of human growth and development such as nutritional aspects, sexuality, motor development, covering situations and diseases as obesity, cerebral palsy, dyslexia and violence. The Journal of Human Growth and Development has maintained the tradition of approaching the different aspects that involve clinical practice for people and for Public Health. 

Public Health Decision Making and Risk Perception

2010 ◽  
pp. 729-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie S. Downs ◽  
Wändi Bruine de Bruin ◽  
Baruch Fischhoff ◽  
Elizabeth A. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document