Search

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare: TCH is a member of the team that developed the TIDieR guide; all other authors have no competing interests.

Background: The value placed on types of evidence within decision-making contexts is highly dependent on individuals, the organizations in which the work and the systems and sectors they operate in. Decision-making processes too are highly contextual. Understanding the values placed on evidence and processes guiding decision-making is crucial to designing strategies to support evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). This paper describes how evidence is used to inform local government (LG) public health decisions., Methods: The study used mixed methods including a cross-sectional survey and interviews. The Evidence-Informed Decision-Making Tool (EvIDenT) survey was designed to assess three key domains likely to impact on EIDM: access, confidence, and organizational culture. Other elements included the usefulness and influence of sources of evidence (people/groups and resources), skills and barriers, and facilitators to EIDM. Forty-five LGs from Victoria, Australia agreed to participate in the survey and up to four people from each organization were invited to complete the survey (n = 175). To further explore definitions of evidence and generate experiential data on EIDM practice, key informant interviews were conducted with a range of LG employees working in areas relevant to public health., Results: In total, 135 responses were received (75% response rate) and 13 interviews were conducted. Analysis revealed varying levels of access, confidence and organizational culture to support EIDM. Significant relationships were found between domains: confidence, culture and access to research evidence. Some forms of evidence (e.g. community views) appeared to be used more commonly and at the expense of others (e.g. research evidence). Overall, a mixture of evidence (but more internal than external evidence) was influential in public health decision-making in councils. By comparison, a mixture of evidence (but more external than internal evidence) was deemed to be useful in public health decision-making., Conclusions: This study makes an important contribution to understanding how evidence is used within the public health LG context., Trial Registration: ACTRN12609000953235.

Background: Sporting organisations provide an important setting for health promotion strategies that involve policies, communication of healthy messages and creation of health promoting environments. The introduction of policy interventions within sporting organisations is one strategy to target high risk behaviours such as smoking, alcohol consumption, excess sun exposure, unhealthy eating and discrimination., Objectives: To update a review of all controlled studies evaluating policy interventions organised through sporting settings to increase healthy behaviour (related to smoking, alcohol, healthy eating, sun protection, discrimination, safety and access)., Search Strategy: We updated the original (2004) searches in May 2007. We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 2007); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations (2004 to Week 3 April 2007); EMBASE (2004 to Week 17 2007); PsyclNFO (2004 to April Week 1 2007); CINAHL (2004 to Week 1 May 2007); SPORTDiscus (2004 to April 2007); Sociological Abstracts (2004 to 2007); Dissertation Abstracts (2004 to May 2007), ERIC (2000 to 2007), freely available online health promotion and sports-related databases hosted by leading agencies, and the internet using sport and policy-related key words., Selection Criteria: Controlled studies evaluating any policy intervention implemented through sporting organisations to instigate and/or sustain healthy behaviour change, intention to change behaviour, or changes in attitudes, knowledge or awareness of healthy behaviour, in people of all ages. Policies must address any of the following: smoking, alcohol, healthy eating, sun protection, access for disadvantaged groups, physical safety (not including injuries), and social and emotional health (e.g. anti-vilification, anti-discrimination). Uncontrolled studies which met the other inclusion criteria were to be reported in an annex to the review., Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed whether identified citations met the inclusion criteria. Abstracts were inspected independently by two review authors and full papers were obtained where necessary. As we located no controlled evaluation studies, we did not undertake data collection or analysis. We found no uncontrolled studies meeting other inclusion criteria, and therefore present no annex to the review., Main Results: We found no rigorous studies evaluating the effectiveness of policy interventions organised through sporting organisations to increase healthy behaviours, attitudes, knowledge or the inclusion of health-oriented policies within the organisations., Authors' Conclusions: We found no controlled studies to guide the use of policy interventions used in sporting settings. The original (2004) searches identified a number of case studies with anecdotal reporting of outcomes. We strongly recommend that rigorous evaluation techniques are employed more commonly in this field to illuminate the impact of health promoting policy on outcomes, and the contexts and processes which are likely to be effective in reducing harmful behaviours.

Background: Evidence-based public health decision-making depends on high quality and transparent accounts of what interventions are effective, for whom, how and at what cost. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized and non-randomized study designs through the CONSORT and TREND statements has had a marked impact on the quality of study designs. However, public health users of systematic reviews have been concerned with the paucity of synthesized information on context, development and rationale, implementation processes and sustainability factors., Methods: This paper examines the existing reporting frameworks for research against information sought by users of systematic reviews of public health interventions and suggests additional items that should be considered in future recommendations on the reporting of public health interventions., Results: Intervention model, theoretical and ethical considerations, study design choice, integrity of intervention/process evaluation, context, differential effects and inequalities and sustainability are often overlooked in reports of public health interventions., Conclusion: Population health policy makers need synthesized, detailed and high quality a priori accounts of effective interventions in order to make better progress in tackling population morbidities and inequalities. Adding simple criteria to reporting standards will significantly improve the quality and usefulness of published evidence and increase its impact on public health program planning.

Background: There is an increased emphasis in public health research on effective models and strategies to support knowledge translation (KT), the exchange, synthesis and ethically sound application of research findings within a complex set of interactions among researchers and knowledge users. In other words, KT can be seen as an acceleration of the knowledge cycle-an acceleration of the natural transformation of knowledge into use (Canadian Institutes of Health Services Research. Knowledge Translation Strategy, 2004). The most recent conceptualizations consider the complexities of public health decision-making. The role of practitioners and communities is increasingly considered., Methods: We identify, describe and discuss the theoretical underpinnings of KT and recommend a way forward to build the evidence for more effective practice., Results: Theoretical perspectives increasingly influence research on KT in public health. A range of innovative work is being conducted to explore methods for KT using practical tools, often with the support of government., Conclusions: KT describes a crucial and to date under-developed element of the research process. There is an important gap in theoretically informed empirical studies of effectiveness of proposed approaches in public health, health promotion and preventive medicine, and thus much of the debate remains abstract. There is clearly an urgent policy need to establish the effectiveness of KT models in a range of contexts. This must include both the consideration of development and the utilization of knowledge.

The article presents the discussion on health risk factors of conditions of considerable burden of disease. Topics include Cochrane systematic reviews summarizing evidence in supporting decision making about public health policy, practice and individual health behaviour; and potential benefits of systematic reviews being maximized while addressing priority public health issues.

Public health practitioners make decisions based on research evidence in combination with a variety of other influences. Evidence summaries are one of a range of knowledge translation options used to support evidence-informed decision making. The literature relevant to obesity prevention requires synthesis for it to be accessible and relevant to end-users. As part of a national collaboration on obesity prevention, we used a stakeholder-focused approach combined with transparent review methods to develop evidence summaries covering a selection of topics relevant to policy and practice in the context of childhood obesity prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes a new approach for tracking and understanding the use and efficacy of published Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG) reviews for public health decision-making. It describes the challenges of defining and identifying the extent to which reviews are used and explains how systematic review impact is measured through interviews and tracer searches. It concludes that assessing review impact is challenging in public health due to the complexity of the decision-making processes.

This article describes an innovative knowledge translation project involving researchers and key stakeholders commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH). The project aimed to develop 'cameo' reports of evidence-based policies and interventions addressing social determinants of health, intended for use by leaders and advocates, as well as policy and programme decision makers, to advance global action. The iterative process of developing the framework and content of the cameos, in the context of a limited evidence base, is described, and a number of issues related to the integration of multiple sources of evidence for knowledge translation action are identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]