Essential skills for using research evidence in public health policy: a systematic review

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
S. Ziam, Pierre Gignac, Élodie Courant, Esther Mc Sween-Cadieux
{"title":"Essential skills for using research evidence in public health policy: a systematic review","authors":"S. Ziam, Pierre Gignac, Élodie Courant, Esther Mc Sween-Cadieux","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16250726996691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Decisions related to the development and implementation of public health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge. However, decision makers do not always feel sufficiently equipped or may lack the capacity to use evidence. This can lead them to overlook or set aside research results that could be relevant to their practice area.Aims and objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the essential skills that facilitate the use of research evidence by public health decision makers.Methods: Thirty-nine articles that met our inclusion criteria were included. An inductive approach was used to extract data on evidence-informed decision-making-related skills and data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings: The analysis revealed three categories of skills that are essential for evidence-informed decision-making process: interpersonal, cognitive, and leadership and influencing skills. Such cross-sectoral skills are essential for identifying, obtaining, synthesising, and integrating sound research results into the decision-making process.Discussion and conclusions: The results of this systematic review will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing research evidence use by public health decision makers, such as developing different types of training that would be relevant to their needs. Also, when considering the evidence-informed decision-making skills development, there are several useful and complementary approaches to link research most effectively to action. On one hand, it is important not only to support decision makers at the individual level through skills development, but also to provide them with a day-to-day environment that is conducive to evidence use.Key messagesPublic health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge;This review identified 39 studies on skills related to evidence-informed decision making;Three categories of skills are proposed: cognitive, interpersonal and leadership and influencing skills;It will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing evidence use by decision makers.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16250726996691","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Decisions related to the development and implementation of public health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge. However, decision makers do not always feel sufficiently equipped or may lack the capacity to use evidence. This can lead them to overlook or set aside research results that could be relevant to their practice area.Aims and objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the essential skills that facilitate the use of research evidence by public health decision makers.Methods: Thirty-nine articles that met our inclusion criteria were included. An inductive approach was used to extract data on evidence-informed decision-making-related skills and data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings: The analysis revealed three categories of skills that are essential for evidence-informed decision-making process: interpersonal, cognitive, and leadership and influencing skills. Such cross-sectoral skills are essential for identifying, obtaining, synthesising, and integrating sound research results into the decision-making process.Discussion and conclusions: The results of this systematic review will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing research evidence use by public health decision makers, such as developing different types of training that would be relevant to their needs. Also, when considering the evidence-informed decision-making skills development, there are several useful and complementary approaches to link research most effectively to action. On one hand, it is important not only to support decision makers at the individual level through skills development, but also to provide them with a day-to-day environment that is conducive to evidence use.Key messagesPublic health programmes or policies can benefit from more effective use of the best available knowledge;This review identified 39 studies on skills related to evidence-informed decision making;Three categories of skills are proposed: cognitive, interpersonal and leadership and influencing skills;It will help direct capacity-building efforts towards enhancing evidence use by decision makers.
在公共卫生政策中使用研究证据的基本技能:系统回顾
背景:与公共卫生规划或政策的制定和执行有关的决定可以从更有效地利用现有的最佳知识中受益。然而,决策者并不总是觉得有足够的准备,或者可能缺乏使用证据的能力。这可能导致他们忽视或搁置可能与他们的实践领域相关的研究成果。目的和目标:本系统评价的目的是综合促进公共卫生决策者使用研究证据的基本技能。方法:纳入符合纳入标准的39篇文章。采用归纳方法提取循证决策相关技能的数据,并将数据综合为叙述性综述。研究发现:分析揭示了对循证决策过程至关重要的三类技能:人际关系、认知、领导和影响技能。这种跨部门技能对于确定、获取、综合可靠的研究成果并将其纳入决策过程至关重要。讨论和结论:这一系统审查的结果将有助于指导能力建设工作,以加强公共卫生决策者对研究证据的使用,例如制定与其需求相关的不同类型的培训。此外,在考虑基于证据的决策技能发展时,有几种有用和互补的方法可以最有效地将研究与行动联系起来。一方面,重要的是不仅要通过技能发展在个人层面支持决策者,而且要为他们提供有利于证据使用的日常环境。关键信息更有效地利用现有的最佳知识可使公共卫生规划或政策受益;本审查确定了39项关于循证决策相关技能的研究;提出了三类技能:认知、人际关系和领导以及影响技能;它将有助于指导能力建设工作,以加强决策者对证据的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信