Fraser Health Authority, Surrey, BC, Canada.
School of Nursing, Scientist, Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, UVIC Community Engaged Scholar , University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
BMC Public Health. 2019 Feb 26;19(1):230. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6534-6.
Equity-focused health impact assessment (EFHIA) can function as a framework and tool that supports users to collate data, information, and evidence related to health equity in order to identify and mitigate the impact of a current or proposed initiative on health inequities. Despite education efforts in both the clinical and public health settings, practitioners have found implementation and the use of evidence in completing equity focussed assessment tools to be challenging.
We conducted a realist evaluation of evidence use in EFHIA in three phases: 1) developing propositions informed by a literature scan, existing theoretical frameworks, and stakeholder engagement; 2) data collection at four case study sites using online surveys, semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and observation; and 3) a realist analysis and identification of context-mechanism-outcome patterns and demi-regularities.
We identified limited use of academic evidence in EFHIA with two explanatory demi-regularities: 1) participants were unable to "identify with" academic sources, acknowledging that evidence based practice and use of academic literature was valued in their organization, but seen as less likely to provide answers needed for practice and 2) use of academic evidence was not associated with a perceived "positive return on investment" of participant energy and time. However, we found that knowledge brokering at the local site can facilitate evidence familiarity and manageability, increase user confidence in using evidence, and increase the likelihood of evidence use in future work.
The findings of this study provide a realist perspective on evidence use in practice, specifically for EFHIA. These findings can inform ongoing development and refinement of various knowledge translation interventions, particularly for practitioners delivering front-line public health services.
以公平为重点的健康影响评估(EFHIA)可以作为一个框架和工具,支持用户整理与健康公平相关的数据、信息和证据,以识别和减轻当前或拟议倡议对健康不公平的影响。尽管在临床和公共卫生环境中都进行了教育工作,但从业者发现实施和使用证据来完成以公平为重点的评估工具具有挑战性。
我们在三个阶段对 EFHIA 中的证据使用进行了真实评估:1)根据文献扫描、现有理论框架和利益相关者参与制定命题;2)在四个案例研究地点使用在线调查、半结构化访谈、文档分析和观察收集数据;3)进行真实主义分析和确定背景-机制-结果模式和 demi-regularities。
我们发现 EFHIA 中对学术证据的使用有限,有两个解释 demi-regularities:1)参与者无法“认同”学术来源,承认循证实践和使用学术文献在他们的组织中受到重视,但认为不太可能为实践提供所需的答案;2)使用学术证据与参与者精力和时间的“正投资回报”无关。然而,我们发现,当地的知识经纪人可以促进证据的熟悉度和可管理性,增加用户使用证据的信心,并增加未来工作中使用证据的可能性。
本研究的结果提供了实践中证据使用的真实主义观点,特别是对于 EFHIA。这些发现可以为正在进行的各种知识转化干预措施的开发和改进提供信息,特别是对于提供一线公共卫生服务的从业者。