Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Peel Public Health is one of Canada’s largest public health departments with 630 staff serving 1.3 million residents. In 2009 we set a 10-year strategy for evidence-informed decision making (EIDM). It involved development of a rapid review process, extensive work force development, consistent funding, supportive infrastructure, and highly visible leadership.
Objectives: To conduct a midpoint evaluation of the strategy to assess the use and impact of research in program decisions.
Methods: The strategy was evaluated in five ways.
1. Survey of senior leaders at three points about the impact of research in their division.
2. Assessment of the practice outcome from each of 40 rapid reviews.
3. Uptake of EIDM training by staff at all levels of the organization.
4. Assessment of the change in skills to find, appraise and apply research by an external researcher.
5. Case study at three points to assess the penetration of EIDM into the organization.
Results: The main barriers to research use in 2009 were lack of access to full text articles, inconsistent ability to assess the quality of research, and no time. By 2014 we belonged to a library consortium and had two librarians, had trained 130 staff in EIDM, and had mentored 40 specialist-manager teams in the rapid review process. Skills in finding, appraising and applying research were tested and had improved significantly. Program changes arising from rapid reviews included five to stop a program, 20 to change a program, 12 to start a new program and nine to maintain the status quo. The case study revealed high visibility of the strategy for all staff, but minimal penetration to front line.
Conclusions: Creating a culture for research use can be achieved by an organization. It requires strong and persistent senior leadership, investment in necessary infrastructure and funding, intensive staff training and mentorship, and an intentional change management strategy. Facilitators include close relationships with researchers, good quality research syntheses and the availability of well-tested training programs. Challenges include staff turnover, competing priorities, and organizational fatigue.
Objectives: To conduct a midpoint evaluation of the strategy to assess the use and impact of research in program decisions.
Methods: The strategy was evaluated in five ways.
1. Survey of senior leaders at three points about the impact of research in their division.
2. Assessment of the practice outcome from each of 40 rapid reviews.
3. Uptake of EIDM training by staff at all levels of the organization.
4. Assessment of the change in skills to find, appraise and apply research by an external researcher.
5. Case study at three points to assess the penetration of EIDM into the organization.
Results: The main barriers to research use in 2009 were lack of access to full text articles, inconsistent ability to assess the quality of research, and no time. By 2014 we belonged to a library consortium and had two librarians, had trained 130 staff in EIDM, and had mentored 40 specialist-manager teams in the rapid review process. Skills in finding, appraising and applying research were tested and had improved significantly. Program changes arising from rapid reviews included five to stop a program, 20 to change a program, 12 to start a new program and nine to maintain the status quo. The case study revealed high visibility of the strategy for all staff, but minimal penetration to front line.
Conclusions: Creating a culture for research use can be achieved by an organization. It requires strong and persistent senior leadership, investment in necessary infrastructure and funding, intensive staff training and mentorship, and an intentional change management strategy. Facilitators include close relationships with researchers, good quality research syntheses and the availability of well-tested training programs. Challenges include staff turnover, competing priorities, and organizational fatigue.