Search

Since December 2019, there has been a global explosion of research on COVID-19. In Canada, the six National Collaborating Centres (NCCs) for Public Health form one of the central pillars supporting evidence-informed decision making by gathering, synthesizing and translating emerging findings. Funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and located across Canada, the six NCCs promote and support the use of scientific research and other knowledges to strengthen public health practice, programs and policies. This paper offers an overview of the NCCs as an example of public health knowledge mobilization in Canada and showcases the NCCs' contribution to the COVID-19 response while reflecting on the numerous challenges encountered., Competing Interests: None

Background: Public health resources are limited and best used for effective programs. This study explores associations of mis-implementation in public health (ending effective programs or continuing ineffective programs) with organizational supports for evidence-based decision making among U.S. local health departments., Methods: The national U.S. sample for this cross-sectional study was stratified by local health department jurisdiction population size. One person was invited from each randomly selected local health department: the leader in chronic disease, or the director. Of 600 selected, 579 had valid email addresses; 376 completed the survey (64.9% response). Survey items assessed frequency of and reasons for mis-implementation. Participants indicated agreement with statements on organizational supports for evidence-based decision making (7-point Likert)., Results: Thirty percent (30.0%) reported programs often or always ended that should have continued (inappropriate termination); organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were not associated with the frequency of programs ending. The main reason given for inappropriate termination was grant funding ended (86.0%). Fewer (16.4%) reported programs often or always continued that should have ended (inappropriate continuation). Higher perceived organizational supports for evidence-based decision making were associated with less frequent inappropriate continuation (odds ratio = 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79, 0.94). All organizational support factors were negatively associated with inappropriate continuation. Top reasons were sustained funding (55.6%) and support from policymakers (34.0%)., Conclusions: Organizational supports for evidence-based decision making may help local health departments avoid continuing programs that should end. Creative mechanisms of support are needed to avoid inappropriate termination. Understanding what influences mis-implementation can help identify supports for de-implementation of ineffective programs so resources can go towards evidence-based programs.

Background: The public health sector is moving toward adopting evidence-informed decision making into practice, but effort is still required to effectively develop capacity and promote contextual factors that advance and sustain it. This paper describes the impact of an organization-wide knowledge translation intervention delivered by knowledge brokers on evidence-informed decision making knowledge, skills and behaviour., Methods: A case study design was implemented with the intervention and data collection tailored to the unique needs of each case (health department). A knowledge broker provided training workshops and mentored small groups through a seven step process of evidence-informed decision making. The intervention was delivered over 22 months; data related to evidence-informed decision making knowledge, skills and behaviour were collected at baseline and follow-up. Mixed effects regression models were developed to assess the impact of involvement in the intervention on the evidence-informed decision making outcomes., Results: Data from a total of 606 health department staff were collected during baseline: 207 (33%) staff from Case A, 304 (28%) from Case B, and 95 (47%) from Case C. There were a total of 804 participants at follow-up: 258 (42%) from Case A, 391 from Case B (37%), and 155 (50%) from Case C. Statistically significant increases in knowledge and skills were observed overall, and in all three health departments. An increase in evidence-informed decision making behaviour was observed among those intensively involved in the intervention from all cases (statistically significant in Case A). The organizational characteristics of strategic priority, leadership, readiness, and choice of staff emerged as important factors in the change process., Conclusions: Knowledge brokering is a promising organizational knowledge translation intervention to support evidence-informed decision making. The intervention appeared to have the greatest impact on those who became actively engaged with the knowledge broker in the intervention. Active participation in face-to-face training activities with a knowledge broker, focused specifically on evidence-informed decision making skill development, led to the greatest impact on associated behaviours, knowledge, and skills. Several organizational factors emerged as integral to success of the knowledge translation intervention.

Background: Workforce development is an important aspect of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) interventions. The social position of individuals in formal and informal social networks, and the relevance of formal roles in relation to EIDM are important factors identifying key EIDM players in public health organizations. We assessed the role of central actors in information sharing networks in promoting the adoption of EIDM by the staff of three public health units in Canada, over a two-year period during which an organization-wide intervention was implemented., Methods: A multi-faceted and tailored intervention to train select staff applying research evidence in practice was implemented in three public health units in Canada from 2011 to 2013. Staff (n = 572) were asked to identify those in the health unit whom they turned to get help using research in practice, whom they considered as experts in EIDM, and friends. We developed multi-level linear regression models to predict the change in EIDM behavior scores predicted by being connected to peers who were central in networks and were engaged in the intervention., Results: Only the group of highly engaged central actors who were connected to each other, and the staff who were not engaged in the intervention but were connected to highly engaged central actors significantly improved their EIDM behavior scores. Among the latter group, the staff who were also friends with their information sources showed a larger improvement in EIDM behavior., Conclusions: If engaged, central network actors use their formal and informal connections to promote EIDM. Central actors themselves are more likely to adopt EIDM if they communicate with each other. These social communications should be reinforced and supported through the implementation of training interventions as a means to promoting EIDM.

Background: Workforce development is an important aspect of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) interventions. The structure of formal and informal social networks can influence, and be influenced, by the implementation of EIDM interventions., Methods: In a mixed methods study we assessed the outcomes of a targeted training intervention to promote EIDM among the staff in three public health units in Ontario, Canada. This report focuses on the qualitative phase of the study in which key staff were interviewed about the process of engagement in the intervention, communications during the intervention, and social consequences., Results: Senior managers identified staff to take part in the intervention. Engagement was a top-down process determined by the way organizational leaders promoted EIDM and the relevance of staff's jobs to EIDM. Communication among staff participating in the workshops and ongoing progress meetings was influential in overcoming personal and normative barriers to implementing EIDM, and promoted the formation of long-lasting social connections among staff. Organization-wide presentations and meetings facilitated the recognition of expertise that the trained staff gained, including their reputation as experts according to their peers in different divisions., Conclusion: Selective training and capacity development interventions can result in forming an elite versus ordinary pattern that facilitates the recognition of in-house qualified experts while also strengthening social status inequality. The role of leadership in public health units is pivotal in championing and overseeing the implementation process. Network analysis can guide and inform the design, process, and evaluation of the EIDM training interventions.

Background: We studied the evolution of information-seeking networks over a 2-year period during which an organization-wide intervention was implemented to promote evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in three public health units in Ontario, Canada. We tested whether engagement of staff in the intervention and their EIDM behavior were associated with being chosen as information source and how the trend of inter-divisional communications and the dominance of experts evolved over time., Methods: Local managers at each health unit selected a group of staff to get engage in Knowledge Broker-led workshops and development of evidence summaries to address local public health problems. The staff were invited to answer three online surveys (at baseline and two annual follow-ups) including name generator questions eliciting the list of the staff they would turn to for help integrating research evidence into practice. We used stochastic actor-oriented modeling to study the evolution of networks. We tested the effect of engagement in the intervention, EIDM behavior scores, organizational divisions, and structural dynamics of social networks on the tendency of staff to select information sources, and the change in its trend between year 1 and year 2 of follow-up., Results: In all the three health units, and especially in the two units with higher levels of engagement in the intervention, the network evolved towards a more centralized structure, with an increasing significance of already central staff. The staff showed greater tendencies to seek information from peers with higher EIDM behavior scores. In the public health unit that had highest engagement and stronger leadership support, the engaged staff became more central. In all public health units, the engaged staff showed an increasing tendency towards forming clusters. The staff in the three public health units showed a tendency towards limiting their connections within their divisions., Conclusions: The longitudinal analysis provided us with a means to study the microstructural changes in public health units, clues to the sustainability of the implementation. The hierarchical transformation of networks towards experts and formation of clusters among staff who were engaged in the intervention show how implementing organizational interventions to promote EIDM may affect the knowledge flow and distribution in health care communities, which may lead to unanticipated consequences.

Objective: The objective of this study is to develop a statistical model to assess factors associated with information seeking in a Canadian public health department., Methods: Managers and professional consultants of a public health department serving a large urban population named whom they turned to for help, whom they considered experts in evidence-informed practice, and whom they considered friends. Multilevel regression analysis and exponential random graph modeling were used to predict the formation of information seeking and expertise-recognition connections by personal characteristics of the seeker and source, and the structural attributes of the social networks., Results: The respondents were more likely to recognize the members of the supervisory/administrative division as experts. The extent to which an individual implemented evidence-based practice (EBP) principles in daily practice was a significant predictor of both being an information source and being recognized as expert by peers. Friendship was a significant predictor of both information seeking and expertise-recognition connections., Conclusion: The analysis showed a communication network segregated by organizational divisions. Managers were identified frequently as information sources, even though this is not a part of their formal role. Self-perceived implementation of EBP in practice was a significant predictor of being an information source or an expert, implying a positive atmosphere towards implementation of evidence-informed decision making in this public health organization. Results also implied that the perception of accessibility and trust were significant predictors of expertise recognition.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify decision-makers' preferences for the transfer and exchange of research knowledge. This article is focused on how the participants define evidence-based decision-making and their preferences for receiving research evidence to integrate into the decision-making process., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 16 Ontario public health decision-makers from six Ontario public health units in this fundamental qualitative descriptive study. The sample included nine program managers, six directors, and one Medical Officer of Health. Participants were asked to define the term evidence-based decision-making and identify preferred research dissemination strategies. The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and coded for emerging concepts., Results: Participants defined evidence-based decision-making as a process whereby multiple sources of information were consulted before making a decision concerning the provision of services. To facilitate integration of research evidence into the decision-making process, public health administrators appreciate receiving, in both electronic and hard copy, systematic reviews, executive summaries of research, and clear statements of implications for practice from health service researchers., Conclusions: Although consensus exists among participants concerning the definition of evidence based public health decision-making, ongoing efforts are required to continue to promote the use of research evidence in program planning and public health policy. It is also important to continue to improve the ease with which public health decision-makers access systematic reviews, as well as to ensure the relevance and applicability of the results to the practice setting.

Objective: To determine the extent to which public health decision makers used five systematic reviews to make policy decisions, and to determine which characteristics predict their use., Methods: This cross-sectional follow-up study of public health decision makers in Ontario collected primary data using a telephone survey and a short, self-administered organizational demographics questionnaire completed by the administrative assistant for each Medical Officer of Health. Independent variables included characteristics of the innovation, organization, environment, and individual. Data were entered into a computerized database developed specifically for this study, and multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted., Results: The participation rate was very high, with 85% of public health units and 96% of available decision makers completing the survey. In addition, 63% of respondents stated they had used at least one of the systematic reviews in the previous 2 years to make a decision. The most important predictors of use were one's position, expecting to use a review in the future, and perceptions that the reviews were easy to use and that they overcame the barrier of limited critical appraisal skills., Conclusions: Utilization of the systematic reviews in Ontario was very high. The utilization rates found in this study were significantly higher than those reported in previous utilization studies. One's position was found to be the strongest predictor of use, identifying program managers and directors as the most appropriate audience for systematic reviews.