Search

Background: Understanding the contextual factors that influence the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP) interventions in public health settings across countries could inform strategies to support the dissemination and implementation of EBCDP interventions globally and more effectively prevent chronic diseases. A survey tool to use across diverse countries is lacking. This study describes the development and reliability testing of a survey tool to assess the stageof dissemination, multi-level contextual factors, and individual and agency characteristicsthat influence the dissemination and implementation of EBCDP interventions in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States. Methods: Development of the 26-question survey included, a narrative literature review of extant measures in EBCDP; qualitative interviews with 50 chronic disease prevention practitioners in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States; review by an expert panel of researchers in EBCDP; and test-retest reliability assessment. Results: A convenience sample of practitioners working in chronic disease prevention in each country completed the survey twice (N = 165). Overall, this tool produced good to moderately reliable responses. Generally, reliability of responses was higher among practitioners from Australia and the United States than China and Brazil. Conclusions: Reliability findings inform the adaptation and further development of this tool. Revisions to four questions are recommended before use in China and revisions to two questions before use in Brazil. This survey tool can contribute toward an improved understanding of the contextual factors that public health practitioners in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States face in their daily chronic disease prevention work related to the dissemination and implementation of EBCDP interventions. This understanding is necessary for the creation of multi-level strategies and policies that promote evidence-based decision-making and effective prevention of chronic diseases on a more global scale. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Implementation of evidence-based practices can improve efficiency and effectiveness of public health efforts. Few studies have explored the political contextual factors that impact implementation of evidence-based non-communicable disease prevention (EBNCDP). This study aimed to do so in Australia, Brazil, China and the United States. Investigators conducted 10-13 qualitative, semi-structured interviews of public health practitioners working in functionally similar public health organizations in each country (total N = 50). Study participants were identified through purposive sampling and interviews were structured around an interview guide covering six domains related to EBNCDP. Interviewees from all four countries identified funding as the primary politically-influenced barrier to implementing EBNCDP. Similarly widespread barriers included government funding priorities that shift based on who is in power and the difficulty of convincing policy-makers and funders that non-communicable disease prevention is a wise investment of political capital. Policymakers who are not evidence-driven was another common barrier even in the United States and Australia, where EBNCDP is more established. Findings suggest that political contextual factors influence EBNCDP and vary to an extent by country, though certain factors seem to be universal. This can aid public health practitioners, political leaders, and policymakers in advocating for conditions and policies that encourage evidence-based practice. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background: Evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP) effectively reduces incidence rates of many chronic diseases, but contextual factors influence the implementation of EBCDP worldwide. This study aims to examine the following contextual factors across four countries: knowledge, access, and use of chronic disease prevention processes.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, public health practitioners (N = 400) from Australia (n = 121), Brazil (n = 76), China (n = 102), and the United States (n = 101) completed a 26-question survey on EBCDP. One-way ANOVA and Pearson's Chi-Square tests were used to assess differences in contextual factors of interest by country.Results: Practitioners in China reported less knowledge of EBCDP processes (p < 0.001) and less use of repositories of evidence-based interventions, than those from other countries (p < 0.001). Academic journals were the most frequently used method for accessing information about evidence-based interventions across countries. When selecting interventions, Brazilian and Chinese practitioners were more likely to consider implementation ease while the Australian and United States practitioners were more likely to consider effectiveness (p < 0.001).Conclusions: These findings can help inform and improve within and across country strategies for implementing EBCDP interventions.

Background Little is known about the contextual factors affecting the uptake of evidence-based chronic disease interventions in the United States and in other countries. This study sought to better understand the contextual similarities and differences influencing the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP) in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States. Methods Between February and July 2015, investigators in each country conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews (total N = 50) with chronic disease prevention practitioners, using interview guides that covered multiple domains (e.g., use of and access to EBCDP interventions, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EBCDP interventions). Results Practitioners across the four countries reported only a few programmatic areas in which repositories of EBCDP interventions were used within their workplace. Across countries, academic journals were the most frequently cited channels for accessing EBCDP interventions, though peers were commonly cited as the most useful. Lack of time and heavy workload were salient personal barriers among practitioners in Australia and the United States, while lack of expertise in developing and implementing EBCDP interventions was more pertinent among practitioners from Brazil and China. Practitioners in all four countries described an organizational culture that was unsupportive of EBCDP. Practitioners in Brazil, China and the United States cited an inadequate number of staff support to implement EBCDP interventions. A few practitioners in Australia and China cited lack of access to evidence. Partnerships were emphasized as key facilitators to implementing EBCDP interventions across all countries. Conclusions This study is novel in its cross-country qualitative exploration of multilevel constructs of EBCDP dissemination and implementation. The interviews produced rich findings about many contextual similarities and differences with EBCDP that can inform both cross-country and country-specific research and practice to address barriers and improve EBCDP implementation among the four countries long-term.