Cited by 116Health Sciences Research and EducationHealth Policy Implementation SciencePublic Health Policies and Education

Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making

Open access
Yost, Jennifer, Dobbins, Maureen, Traynor, Robyn, DeCorby, Kara, Workentine, Stephanie, Greco, Lori·2014·BMC Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Public health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making. METHODS: As part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools. RESULTS: Tools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making. CONCLUSION: Tools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2458-14-728

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Health Evidence Quality assessment tool: Review articles [ http://www.healthevidence.org/documents/our-appraisal-tools/QA_tool&dictionary_18.Mar.2013.pdf]
  2. Letts L Wilkins S Law M Stewart D Bosch J Westmorland M Critical Review Form – Qualitative Studies (Version 2.0) [ http://www.srs-mcmaster.ca/Portals/20/pdf/ebp/qualreview_version2.0.pdf]
  3. Region of Peel Public Health Step 6 - Rapid review report structure [ http://www.peelregion.ca/health/library/report-structure.asp]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yost, J., Dobbins, M., Traynor, R., DeCorby, K., Workentine, S., & Greco, L.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Public Health Ontario (CA)
Corresponding author
Yost, Jennifer
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2014-07-18
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
728-728
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028806048
Cited by
116
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6
FWCI
13.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (126353, 101867_1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
Keywords
evidence-informed decision-making, public health decision-making, decision support system, knowledge translation, knowledge brokers, critical appraisal, health departments, tool usability, evidence-informed practice
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Health Policy, Humans, Ontario, Public Health, Evidence-Based Medicine, Information Dissemination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review