Unravelling the Black Box of Research Transfer and Uptake among Public Health Decision Makers

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/151858
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Unravelling the Black Box of Research Transfer and Uptake among Public Health Decision Makers
Abstract:
Unravelling the Black Box of Research Transfer and Uptake among Public Health Decision Makers
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2002
Conference Date:July, 2002
Author:Dobbins, Maureen
P.I. Institution Name:McMaster University
Title:Assistant Professor
OBJECTIVE: There is a strong movement in healthcare towards evidence-based practice. Translating research into practice requires that decision-makers accept and utilize the available evidence. Systematic reviews consolidate the research in a specific area, provide greater confidence in the effectiveness of interventions, and are becoming a valuable source of information for decision-makers. The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate strategies to disseminate the findings of systematic reviews among public health and health promotion decision-makers. The five objectives include: developing a comprehensive database of all published reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health and health promotion interventions; critically appraising the review methods and making reviews and quality ratings available on-line to all decision-makers; interviewing decision makers to determine their preferences for receiving research evidence including issues related to the content of research reports; conducting a pilot evaluation of the dissemination strategy; and identifying gaps in the literature so that future systematic reviews conducted in the field will be relevant to decision-makers. DESIGN: Interview data for decision-makers across Canada was collected and analyzed qualitatively, using a phenomenological framework. Open ended questions included: asking participants to give an example of a recent decision and how research evidence was used, questions about specific features of the evidence received (both what is current and what would be desirable), and inquiring about critical appraisal skills for evaluating research evidence. POPULATION, SAMPLE, SETTING, YEARS: Purposeful sampling was used to draw from the Canadian population of public health decision makers including medical officers of health, program directors/managers/coordinators, non-governmental organizations, and federal and provincial policy makers in public health and health promotion, 2001-2002. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME VARIABLES: One in-depth, semi-structured interview was conducted with each participant by telephone. METHODS: Members of the intended audience were interviewed to determine how best to facilitate utilization of research results in their respective roles. All qualitative interviews were audio taped and verbatim transcripts entered into NUDIST. Data were coded and grouped into recurrent themes, which were agreed upon by two reviewers. FINDINGS: Canadian decision-makers demonstrated specific preferences for certain types of research evidence based on their position. These preferences are not met consistently by researchers, which affects the rate of research utilization by the audiences interviewed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of available reviews by Canadian decision makers is affected by their preferences for receiving and using research evidence, and may be dependent on their particular position(s). IMPLICATIONS: Evaluation of the needs and preferences of decision makers in Canada will offer valuable feedback for the dissemination of systematic reviews in public health/health promotion, and a model on which to base future studies in healthcare decision making.

Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
Jul-2002
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleUnravelling the Black Box of Research Transfer and Uptake among Public Health Decision Makersen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/151858-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Unravelling the Black Box of Research Transfer and Uptake among Public Health Decision Makers</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2002</td></tr><tr class="item-conference-date"><td class="label">Conference Date:</td><td class="value">July, 2002</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Dobbins, Maureen</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">McMaster University</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Assistant Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">dobbinsm@mcmaster.ca</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">OBJECTIVE: There is a strong movement in healthcare towards evidence-based practice. Translating research into practice requires that decision-makers accept and utilize the available evidence. Systematic reviews consolidate the research in a specific area, provide greater confidence in the effectiveness of interventions, and are becoming a valuable source of information for decision-makers. The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate strategies to disseminate the findings of systematic reviews among public health and health promotion decision-makers. The five objectives include: developing a comprehensive database of all published reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health and health promotion interventions; critically appraising the review methods and making reviews and quality ratings available on-line to all decision-makers; interviewing decision makers to determine their preferences for receiving research evidence including issues related to the content of research reports; conducting a pilot evaluation of the dissemination strategy; and identifying gaps in the literature so that future systematic reviews conducted in the field will be relevant to decision-makers. DESIGN: Interview data for decision-makers across Canada was collected and analyzed qualitatively, using a phenomenological framework. Open ended questions included: asking participants to give an example of a recent decision and how research evidence was used, questions about specific features of the evidence received (both what is current and what would be desirable), and inquiring about critical appraisal skills for evaluating research evidence. POPULATION, SAMPLE, SETTING, YEARS: Purposeful sampling was used to draw from the Canadian population of public health decision makers including medical officers of health, program directors/managers/coordinators, non-governmental organizations, and federal and provincial policy makers in public health and health promotion, 2001-2002. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME VARIABLES: One in-depth, semi-structured interview was conducted with each participant by telephone. METHODS: Members of the intended audience were interviewed to determine how best to facilitate utilization of research results in their respective roles. All qualitative interviews were audio taped and verbatim transcripts entered into NUDIST. Data were coded and grouped into recurrent themes, which were agreed upon by two reviewers. FINDINGS: Canadian decision-makers demonstrated specific preferences for certain types of research evidence based on their position. These preferences are not met consistently by researchers, which affects the rate of research utilization by the audiences interviewed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of available reviews by Canadian decision makers is affected by their preferences for receiving and using research evidence, and may be dependent on their particular position(s). IMPLICATIONS: Evaluation of the needs and preferences of decision makers in Canada will offer valuable feedback for the dissemination of systematic reviews in public health/health promotion, and a model on which to base future studies in healthcare decision making.<br/><br/></td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T11:16:02Z-
dc.date.issued2002-07en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T11:16:02Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.