Selecting Review Outcomes for Systematic Reviews of Public Health Interventions

2021 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-470
Author(s):  
Luke Wolfenden ◽  
Ani Movsisyan ◽  
Sam McCrabb ◽  
Jan M Stratil ◽  
Sze Lin Yoong
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
End Users ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Core Outcome Sets ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision

For systematic reviews to have an impact on public health, they must report outcomes that are important for decision-making. Systematic reviews of public health interventions, however, have a range of potential end users, and identifying and prioritizing the most important and relevant outcomes represents a considerable challenge. In this commentary, we describe potentially useful approaches that systematic review teams can use to identify review outcomes to best inform public health decision-making. Specifically, we discuss the importance of stakeholder engagement, the use of logic models, consideration of core outcome sets, reviews of the literature on end users’ needs and preferences, and the use of decision-making frameworks in the selection and prioritization of outcomes included in reviews. The selection of review outcomes is a critical step in the production of public health reviews that are relevant to those who use them. Utilizing the suggested strategies may help the review teams better achieve this.

FACTORS OF THE INNOVATION, ORGANIZATION, ENVIRONMENT, AND INDIVIDUAL THAT PREDICT THE INFLUENCE FIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS HAD ON PUBLIC HEALTH DECISIONS

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Dobbins ◽  
Rhonda Cockerill ◽  
Jan Barnsley ◽  
Donna Ciliska
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Health Decisions ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Ongoing Training ◽  
Health Decision

Objective: To determine the extent to which systematic reviews of public health interventions influenced public health decisions and which factors were associated with influencing these decisions.Methods: This cross-sectional follow-up survey evaluated the use of five systematic reviews in public health decision making. Independent variables included characteristics of the innovation, organization, environment, and individual. Primary data were collected using a telephone survey and a self-administered organizational demographics questionnaire. Public health decision makers in all 41 public health units in Ontario were invited to participate in the study. Multiple linear regression analyses on the five program decisions were conducted.Results: The systematic reviews were perceived as having the greatest amount of influence on decisions related to program justification and program planning, and the least influence on program evaluation decisions. The greater the perception that one's organization valued the use of research evidence for decision making and that ongoing training in the critical appraisal of research literature was provided, the greater the perception of the influence the systematic review had on public health decisions.Conclusions: Organizational characteristics are important predictors of the use of systematic reviews in public health decision making. Future dissemination strategies need to promote the value of using systematic reviews for program decision making as well as promote ongoing training in critical appraisal among intended users in Ontario.

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.

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