The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tools to support evidence-informed public health decision making
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A. C., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., & Bouter, L. M. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 · Cited by 4,374
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1984) · Nursing Administration Quarterly · doi:10.1097/00006216-198400830-00014 · Cited by 4,225
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
Twaddle, S., & Qureshi, S. (2005) · Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.ehbc.2005.09.008 · Cited by 4,080
AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care
Brouwers, M. C., Kho, M. E., Browman, G. P., Burgers, J. S., Cluzeau, F., Feder, G., Fervers, B., Graham, I. D., Grimshaw, J., Hanna, S. E., et al. (2010) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.090449 · Cited by 3,790
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Guyatt, G. H. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.270.17.2096 · Cited by 3,083
Knowledge translation of research findings
Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-50 · Cited by 2,407
A theory of organizational readiness for change
Weiner, B. J. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67 · Cited by 2,268
Shea, B. J., Hamel, C., Wells, G. A., Bouter, L. M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., Henry, D. A., & Boers, M. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009 · Cited by 1,755
The art of Japanese management
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/0007-6813(81)90032-x · Cited by 1,629
Armijo‐Olivo, S., Stiles, C. R., Hagen, N. A., Biondo, P. D., & Cummings, G. G. (2012) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x · Cited by 1,539
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Ciliska D, Thomas H, Buffett C: An introduction to evidence-based public health and a compendium of critical appraisal tools for public health practice (Revised). 2012, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools
- Health Evidence: Quality assessment tool: Review articles. [ http://www.healthevidence.org/documents/our-appraisal-tools/QA_tool&dictionary_18.Mar.2013.pdf ]
- 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 ]
- Region of Peel Public Health: Step 6 - Rapid review report structure. [ http://www.peelregion.ca/health/library/report-structure.asp ]
- Ross S, Goering P, Jacobson N, Butterill D: A Guide for Assessing Health Research Knowledge Translation Plans. 2007, Toronto, ON: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Green, L. W. (2017) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014746 · Cited by 404
Bornbaum, C. C., Kornas, K., Peirson, L., & Rosella, L. C. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0351-9 · Cited by 301
“In addition, Yost and colleagues [48, 49] evaluated the effectiveness of tailored KB strategies to enhance capacity for evidence-informed decision-making and found that participants who worked closely with the KB demonstrated a change in evidence-informed decision-making skills [49].”
BackgroundInfluentialRevisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science
Brownson, R. C., Shelton, R. C., Geng, E., & Glasgow, R. E. (2022) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01201-y · Cited by 223
“Especially in Canada and Australia, the term “evidence-informed” decision-making is commonly used [15, 36].”
BackgroundEstabrooks, P. A., Brownson, R. C., & Pronk, N. P. (2018) · Preventing Chronic Disease · doi:10.5888/pcd15.180525 · Cited by 208
Brennan, S., McKenzie, J. E., Turner, T., Redman, S., Makkar, S. R., Williamson, A. B., Haynes, A. S., & Green, S. (2017) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0162-8 · Cited by 149
Metadata
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC4223550
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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
