↓ Skip to main content

Training needs and supports for evidence-based decision making among the public health workforce in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Training needs and supports for evidence-based decision making among the public health workforce in the United States
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0564-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebekah R Jacob, Elizabeth A Baker, Peg Allen, Elizabeth A Dodson, Kathleen Duggan, Robert Fields, Sonia Sequeira, Ross C Brownson

Abstract

BackgroundPreparing the public health workforce to practice evidence-based decision making (EBDM) is necessary to effectively impact health outcomes. Few studies report on training needs in EBDM at the national level in the United States. We report competency gaps to practice EBDM based on four U.S. national surveys we conducted with the state and local public health workforce between 2008 and 2013.MethodsWe compared self-reported data from four U.S. national online surveys on EBDM conducted between 2008 and 2013. Participants rated the importance of each EBDM competency then rated how available the competency is to them when needed on a Likert scale. We calculated a gap score by subtracting availability scores from importance scores. We compared mean gaps across surveys and utilized independent samples t tests and Cohen¿s d values to compare state level gaps. In addition, participants in the 2013 state health department survey selected and ranked three items that ¿would most encourage you to utilize EBDM in your work¿ and items that ¿would be most useful to you in applying EBDM in your work¿. We calculated the percentage of participants who ranked each item among their top three.ResultsThe largest competency gaps were consistent across all four surveys: economic evaluation, communicating research to policymakers, evaluation designs, and adapting interventions. Participants from the 2013 state level survey reported significantly larger mean importance and availability scores (p <0.001, d =1.00, and p <0.001, d¿=¿.78 respectively) and smaller mean gaps (p <0.01, d¿=¿.19) compared to the 2008 survey. Participants most often selected ¿leaders prioritizing EBDM¿ (67.9%) among top ways to encourage EBDM use. ¿EBDM training for specific areas¿ was most commonly ranked as important in applying EBDM (64.3%).ConclusionPerceived importance and availability of EBDM competencies may be increasing as supports for EBDM continue to grow through trends in funding, training, and resources. However, more capacity building is needed overall, with specific attention to the largest competency gaps. More work with public health departments to both situate trainings to boost competency in these areas and continued improvements for organizational practices (leadership prioritization) are possible next steps to sustain EBDM efforts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Other 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Social Sciences 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,875,823
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,679
of 7,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,527
of 258,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#41
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.