- Title
- Research outcomes informing the selection of public health interventions and strategies to implement them: A cross-sectional survey of Australian policy-maker and practitioner preferences
- Creator
- Wolfenden, Luke; Hall, Alix; Bauman, Adrian; Milat, Andrew; Hodder, Rebecca; Webb, Emily; Mooney, Kaitlin; Yoong, Serene; Sutherland, Rachel; McCrabb, Sam
- Relation
- Health Research Policy and Systems Vol. 22, Issue 1, no. 58
- Publisher Link
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01144-4
- Publisher
- BioMed Central Ltd.
- Resource Type
- journal article
- Date
- 2024
- Description
- Background: A key role of public health policy-makers and practitioners is to ensure beneficial interventions are implemented effectively enough to yield improvements in public health. The use of evidence to guide public health decision-making to achieve this is recommended. However, few studies have examined the relative value, as reported by policy-makers and practitioners, of different broad research outcomes (that is, measures of cost, acceptability, and effectiveness). To guide the conduct of research and better inform public health policy and practice, this study aimed at describing the research outcomes that Australian policy-makers and practitioners consider important for their decision-making when selecting: (a) public health interventions; (b) strategies to support their implementation; and (c) to assess the differences in research outcome preferences between policy-makers and practitioners. Method: An online value-weighting survey was conducted with Australian public health policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention. Participants were presented with a list of research outcomes and were asked to select up to five they considered most critical to their decision-making. They then allocated 100 points across these – allocating more points to outcomes perceived as more important. Outcome lists were derived from a review and consolidation of evaluation and outcome frameworks in the fields of public health knowledge translation and implementation. We used descriptive statistics to report relative preferences overall and for policy-makers and practitioners separately. Results: Of the 186 participants; 90 primarily identified as policy-makers and 96 as public health prevention practitioners. Overall, research outcomes of effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability were identified as the four most important outcomes when considering either interventions or strategies to implement them. Scores were similar for most outcomes between policy-makers and practitioners. Conclusion: For Australian policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention, outcomes related to effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability appear particularly important to their decisions about the interventions they select and the strategies they employ to implement them. The findings suggest researchers should seek to meet these information needs and prioritize the inclusion of such outcomes in their research and dissemination activities. The extent to which these outcomes are critical to informing the decision of policy-makers and practitioners working in other jurisdictions or contexts warrants further investigation.
- Subject
- public health; policy-makers; non-communicable disease prevention; research outcomes
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1505679
- Identifier
- uon:55712
- Identifier
- ISSN:1478-4505
- Language
- eng
- Reviewed
- Hits: 30
- Visitors: 30
- Downloads: 0