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

Author:

Carter Bronwyn J.

Abstract

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.

Publisher

CSIRO Publishing

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3