Search

The evidence-based public health course equips public health professionals with skills and tools for applying evidence-based frameworks and processes in public health practice. To date, training has included participants from all the 50 U.S. states, 2 U.S. territories, and multiple other countries besides the U.S. This study pooled follow-up efforts (5 surveys, with 723 course participants, 2005-2019) to explore the benefits, application, and barriers to applying the evidence-based public health course content. All analyses were completed in 2020. The most common benefits (reported by >80% of all participants) were identifying ways to apply knowledge in their work, acquiring new knowledge, and becoming a better leader who promotes evidence-based approaches. Participants most frequently applied course content to searching the scientific literature (72.9%) and least frequently to writing grants (42.7%). Lack of funds for continued training (35.3%), not having enough time to implement evidence-based public health approaches (33.8%), and not having coworkers trained in evidence-based public health (33.1%) were common barriers to applying the content from the course. Mean scores were calculated for benefits, application, and barriers to explore subgroup differences. European participants generally reported higher benefits from the course (mean difference=0.12, 95% CI=0.00, 0.23) and higher frequency of application of the course content to their job (mean difference=0.17, 95% CI=0.06, 0.28) than U.S. participants. Participants from later cohorts (2012-2019) reported more overall barriers to applying course content in their work (mean difference=0.15, 95% CI=0.05, 0.24). The evidence-based public health course represents an important strategy for increasing the capacity (individual skills) for evidence-based processes within public health practice. Organization-level methods are also needed to scale up and sustain capacity-building efforts., (Copyright © 2021 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Funders and accreditation standards increasingly call on state and local public health agencies to use the best available science. Using research evidence is a key process in practicing evidence-based decision making (EBDM). This study explored preferences for and uses of research evidence, and examined correlates regarding frequency of use., Methods: In 2014, eligible staff from 12 state health departments and their partnering agencies were invited to complete an online self-report questionnaire and achieved an 82% response rate (1,237/1,509). The cross-sectional data analyzed in 2015 were baseline to a study on enhancing EBDM capacity and supports., Results: Webinars/workshops was the most frequently selected method to learn public health findings among those in state and local health departments, whereas academic journals was the top selection by those in universities and healthcare facilities (p<0.001). Several modifiable EBDM practices were associated with more frequent use of research evidence, including direct supervisor expectations for EBDM use and performance evaluation based partially on EBDM use (AOR=2.5, 95% CI=1.9, 3.2 and AOR=2.5, 95% CI=2.1, 2.9, respectively). Increased numbers of EBDM practices were associated with higher odds of frequent research evidence use. Participant characteristics associated with higher research evidence use and adjusted for were job role, education attainment, and gender., Conclusions: To translate research into public health practice, researchers can tailor evidence on intervention implementation and effectiveness and disease burden to accessible and preferred formats for public health workers and partners. Management practices to support evidence-based disease prevention can be instituted and fostered in public health and partnering agencies., (Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A better understanding of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs and policies or continuing ineffective ones) may provide important information for decision makers. The purpose of this study is to describe the frequency and patterns in mis-implementation of programs in state and local health departments in the U.S., Methods: A cross-sectional study of 944 public health practitioners was conducted. The sample included state (n=277) and local health department employees (n=398) and key partners from other agencies (n=269). Data were collected from October 2013 through June 2014 (analyzed in May through October 2014). Online survey questions focused on ending programs that should continue, continuing programs that should end, and reasons for endings., Results: Among state health department employees, 36.5% reported that programs often or always end that should have continued, compared with 42.0% of respondents in local health departments and 38.3% of respondents working in other agencies. In contrast to ending programs that should have continued, 24.7% of state respondents reported programs often or always continuing when they should have ended, compared to 29.4% for local health departments and 25% of respondents working in other agencies. Certain reasons for program endings differed at the state versus local level (e.g., policy support, support from agency leadership), suggesting that actions to address mis-implementation are likely to vary., Conclusions: The current data suggest a need to focus on mis-implementation in public health practice in order to make the best use of scarce resources., (Copyright © 2015 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)