Jacob Rebekah R, Allen Peg M, Ahrendt Linda J, Brownson Ross C
Nine Network of Public Media, St. Louis, Missouri.
Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Am J Prev Med. 2017 Mar;52(3 Suppl 3):S304-S308. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.010.
Funders and accreditation standards increasingly call on state and local public health agencies to use the best available science. Using research evidence is a key process in practicing evidence-based decision making (EBDM). This study explored preferences for and uses of research evidence, and examined correlates regarding frequency of use.
In 2014, eligible staff from 12 state health departments and their partnering agencies were invited to complete an online self-report questionnaire and achieved an 82% response rate (1,237/1,509). The cross-sectional data analyzed in 2015 were baseline to a study on enhancing EBDM capacity and supports.
Webinars/workshops was the most frequently selected method to learn public health findings among those in state and local health departments, whereas academic journals was the top selection by those in universities and healthcare facilities (p<0.001). Several modifiable EBDM practices were associated with more frequent use of research evidence, including direct supervisor expectations for EBDM use and performance evaluation based partially on EBDM use (AOR=2.5, 95% CI=1.9, 3.2 and AOR=2.5, 95% CI=2.1, 2.9, respectively). Increased numbers of EBDM practices were associated with higher odds of frequent research evidence use. Participant characteristics associated with higher research evidence use and adjusted for were job role, education attainment, and gender.
To translate research into public health practice, researchers can tailor evidence on intervention implementation and effectiveness and disease burden to accessible and preferred formats for public health workers and partners. Management practices to support evidence-based disease prevention can be instituted and fostered in public health and partnering agencies.
资助者和认证标准越来越多地要求州和地方公共卫生机构采用现有的最佳科学成果。运用研究证据是实施循证决策（EBDM）的关键过程。本研究探讨了对研究证据的偏好和使用情况，并考察了与使用频率相关的因素。
2014年，邀请了12个州卫生部门及其合作机构的符合条件的工作人员完成一份在线自填式问卷，回复率为82%（1237/1509）。2015年分析的横断面数据是一项关于提高循证决策能力及支持措施研究的基线数据。
网络研讨会/工作坊是州和地方卫生部门人员了解公共卫生研究结果时最常选择的方法，而学术期刊是大学和医疗机构人员的首选（p<0.001）。几种可改变的循证决策实践与更频繁地使用研究证据相关，包括直接上级对循证决策使用的期望以及部分基于循证决策使用的绩效评估（调整后比值比分别为2.5，95%置信区间为1.9, 3.2和2.5，95%置信区间为2.1, 2.9）。循证决策实践数量的增加与频繁使用研究证据的较高几率相关。与较高研究证据使用相关且经过调整的参与者特征包括工作角色、教育程度和性别。
为了将研究成果转化为公共卫生实践，研究人员可以针对公共卫生工作者及其合作伙伴，将关于干预措施实施、效果及疾病负担的证据调整为易于获取且更受欢迎的形式。在公共卫生机构及其合作机构中，可以制定并促进支持循证疾病预防的管理实践。
