Evidence-based decision-making: practical issues in the appraisal of evidence to inform policy and practice

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwyn J. Carter

Objective. To highlight the differences between a systematic review of the literature and a systematic review of the best available evidence; to discuss practical issues in the appraisal of evidence to inform public health policy and practice; and to make recommendations for next steps in the development of evidence-based decision making in public health. Data sources and selection. Literature and other sources were reviewed including the subject reading list, recommended texts and websites for the La Trobe University postgraduate subject Evidence Based Public Health Practice 2007 and other relevant sources identified. Data extraction and synthesis. Relevant opinions were extracted to summarise debate in relation to definitions of evidence, usefulness of systematic reviews, tools for critical appraisal and other practical issues in the translation of evidence into practice. Conclusions. Evidence relevant to decisions regarding public health policy and practice may include evidence from the literature including experimental and observational studies as well as other sources, including policies and opinions of stakeholders. Further development of skills and approaches to the critical appraisal of evidence are required. Recommendations include: mapping of Australian competencies to public health education; development of national guidelines to inform the appraisal of evidence for public health decision making; and promotion of leadership and education in evidence-based approaches, discussion and debate in relation to definitions of evidence, and public health research that generates the best possible evidence. What is known about the topic? Systematic reviews are a well recognised tool for the critical appraisal of evidence to inform decision making. There is a lack of agreement about what constitutes valid evidence for inclusion in such reviews and many policy makers have no training or qualifications in the use of systematised approaches to the critical appraisal of evidence from a range of sources to inform decisions. Approaches to critical appraisal of evidence and skills in appraisal of evidence and evidence-based decision making require further development. What does this paper add? This paper reviews current opinions on what constitutes valid evidence and discusses important differences between a systematic review of the literature as distinct from a systematic review of available evidence. The desirable approach is recognised as the utilisation of the best available evidence from a range of sources to inform decision making, including evidence from observational studies including qualitative data, as well as contextual and colloquial evidence. This paper calls for: mapping of Australian competencies to public health education; development of national guidelines to inform the appraisal of evidence for public health decision making; and the promotion of leadership and education in evidence-based approaches, discussion and debate in relation to definitions of evidence and the promotion of public health research that generates the best possible evidence. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper calls upon practitioners to further develop skills in critical appraisal of evidence from a range of sources to inform policy and practice, and to foster collaborative partnerships between researchers, policy makers, educators, managers and clinicians.

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Bradt

AbstractEvidence is defined as data on which a judgment or conclusion may be based. In the early 1990s, medical clinicians pioneered evidence-based decision-making. The discipline emerged as the use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine required the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available, external clinical evidence from systematic research and the patient's unique values and circumstances. In this context, evidence acquired a hierarchy of strength based upon the method of data acquisition.Subsequently, evidence-based decision-making expanded throughout the allied health field. In public health, and particularly for populations in crisis, three major data-gathering tools now dominate: (1) rapid health assessments; (2) population based surveys; and (3) disease surveillance. Unfortunately, the strength of evidence obtained by these tools is not easily measured by the grading scales of evidence-based medicine. This is complicated by the many purposes for which evidence can be applied in public health—strategic decision-making, program implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Different applications have different requirements for strength of evidence as well as different time frames for decision-making. Given the challenges of integrating data from multiple sources that are collected by different methods, public health experts have defined best available evidence as the use of all available sources used to provide relevant inputs for decision-making.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C E Chronaki ◽  
A Miglietta

Abstract Evidence-based decision-making is central to public health. Implementing evidence-informed actions is most challenging during a public health emergency as in an epidemic, when time is limited, scientific uncertainties and political pressures tend to be high, and reliable data is typically lacking. The process of including data for preparedness and training for evidence-based decision making in public health emergencies is not systematic and is complicated by many barriers as the absence of common digital tools and approaches for resource planning and update of response plans. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is used with the aim to improve the quality and efficiency of public health interventions and to make healthcare systems more sustainable. Many of today's public health crises are also cross-border, and countries need to collaborate in a systematic and standardized way in order to enhance interoperability to share data and to plan coordinated response. Digital health tools have an important role to play in this setting, facilitating use of knowledge about the population that can potentially affected by the crisis within and across regional and national borders. To strengthen the impact of scientific evidence on decision-making for public health emergency preparedness and response, it is necessary to better define and align mechanisms through which interdisciplinary evidence feeds into decision-making processes during public health emergencies and the context in which these mechanisms operate. Activities and policy development in the HTA network could inform this process. The objective of this presentation is to identify barriers for evidence-based decision making during public health emergencies and discuss how standardization in digital health and HTA processes may help overcome these barriers leading to more effective coordinated and evidence-based public health emergency response.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. e21704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lois Orton ◽  
Ffion Lloyd-Williams ◽  
David Taylor-Robinson ◽  
Martin O'Flaherty ◽  
Simon Capewell

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane L. Forrest ◽  
Syrene A. Miller

Abstract This is the second of a two-part series addressing the use of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) in the use of home bleaching. In Part 1, a case scenario demonstrated the skills involved in (1) structuring a clinical question and (2) conducting an online search using PubMed.1 Part 2 demonstrates the third and fourth steps in the EBDM process, i.e., (3) critical appraisal to assess the validity of a study and (4) applying that information to clinical decision making. This 4-step approach to EBDM recognizes that clinicians can never be completely current with all conditions, medications, materials, and products. Thus, EBDM provides a mechanism for addressing these gaps in knowledge in order to provide the best care possible. Citation Forrest JL, Miller SA. Evidence-Based Decision Making in Action: Part 2 – Evaluating and Applying the Clinical Evidence. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003 February;(4)1:042-052.


1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 86-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross C. Brownson ◽  
James G. Gurney ◽  
Garland H. Land

2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Harris ◽  
Karen Kearley ◽  
Carl Heneghan ◽  
Emma Meats ◽  
Nia Roberts ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph T. Ornstein ◽  
Ross A. Hammond ◽  
Margaret Padek ◽  
Stephanie Mazzucca ◽  
Ross C. Brownson

Abstract Background Mis-implementation—defined as failure to successfully implement and continue evidence-based programs—is widespread in public health practice. Yet the causes of this phenomenon are poorly understood. Methods We develop an agent-based computational model to explore how complexity hinders effective implementation. The model is adapted from the evolutionary biology literature and incorporates three distinct complexities faced in public health practice: dimensionality, ruggedness, and context-specificity. Agents in the model attempt to solve problems using one of three approaches—Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA), evidence-based interventions (EBIs), and evidence-based decision-making (EBDM). Results The model demonstrates that the most effective approach to implementation and quality improvement depends on the underlying nature of the problem. Rugged problems are best approached with a combination of PDSA and EBI. Context-specific problems are best approached with EBDM. Conclusions The model’s results emphasize the importance of adapting one’s approach to the characteristics of the problem at hand. Evidence-based decision-making (EBDM), which combines evidence from multiple independent sources with on-the-ground local knowledge, is a particularly potent strategy for implementation and quality improvement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document