Research as intervention in heart health promotion.

School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.
Canadian journal of public health. Revue canadienne de santé publique (Impact Factor: 1.02). 01/2006; 97(4):291-5.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Capacity building in health promotion has traditionally involved training interventions to support knowledge, skill and resource building for effective practice. However, there is a need to understand how research can be used to support capacity building and practice.
Findings are based on a parallel case study comprising qualitative analysis of 66 key informant interviews from five provincial heart health projects (Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador) as part of the Canadian Heart Health Dissemination Project.
Results indicate research was used primarily to monitor and report results about health promotion capacity and dissemination to stakeholders, and contribute to participatory processes. Respondents noted that research as intervention had an influence on five areas of health promotion capacity and practice: increased heart health promotion knowledge/skills; improved programming, planning and prioritizing; increased motivation for (heart) health promotion initiatives; and cultivation of relationships as well as buy-in.
Research was a complementary capacity-building activity, although it did not directly increase program implementation. These findings contribute to linking researchers, practitioners and community decision-makers in the process of enhancing health promotion practice.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A strong partnership between researchers and providers is crucial to advance the science of dissemination and to support dissemination of effective chronic disease prevention programs. We reflect on our experience in three recent studies, (a) COMMIT, (b) a National Survey of School Smoking Prevention Programs, and (c) an ongoing study of Training of Providers of Smoking Prevention Programs to identify specific ways in which research and provider communities might collaborate. We propose that a national working group of researchers and providers be established to support (a) dissemination of programs by creating and continuously updating an inventory of 'tested' methods and protocols for use in key community intervention channels (health care offices, worksites, etc.) and (b) dissemination research by establishing a shared set of research priorities and mechanisms to stimulate researcher-provider partnership during the research process.
    Canadian journal of public health. Revue canadienne de santé publique 87 Suppl 2:S50-3. · 1.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The empirical basis for theories and common wisdom regarding how to improve appropriate use of research evidence in policy decisions is unclear. One source of empirical evidence is interview studies with policy-makers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence from interview studies of facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of research evidence by health policy-makers. We searched multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, Sociofile, PsychLit, PAIS, IBSS, IPSA and HealthStar in June 2000, hand-searched key journals and personally contacted investigators. We included interview studies with health policy-makers that covered their perceptions of the use of research evidence in health policy decisions at a national, regional or organisational level. Two reviewers independently assessed the relevance of retrieved articles, described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and analysed qualitatively. We identified 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies included a total of 2041 interviews with health policy-makers. Assessments of the use of evidence were largely descriptive and qualitative, focusing on hypothetical scenarios or retrospective perceptions of the use of evidence in relation to specific cases. Perceived facilitators of, and barriers to, the use of evidence varied. The most commonly reported facilitators were personal contact (13/24), timely relevance (13/24), and the inclusion of summaries with policy recommendations (11/24). The most commonly reported barriers were absence of personal contact (11/24), lack of timeliness or relevance of research (9/24), mutual mistrust (8/24) and power and budget struggles (7/24). Interview studies with health policy-makers provide only limited support for commonly held beliefs about facilitators of, and barriers to, their use of evidence, and raise questions about commonsense proposals for improving the use of research for policy decisions. Two-way personal communication, the most common suggestion, may improve the appropriate use of research evidence, but it might also promote selective (inappropriate) use of research evidence.
    Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 11/2002; 7(4):239-44. · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The choice of an appropriate social rate of discount is critical in the decision-making process on public investments. In this paper we review the literature on social discounting, and address in particular a recently growing field of related research, that is, individual time preferences. We argue that an explicit consideration and analysis of the behaviour of individuals regarding the concept and the use of an appropriate social discount rate are essential for balanced decision making in the public sector, especially, though not exclusively, in the field of resource or environmental policy.
    Research Policy 02/2001; 30(2):333-349. · 2.85 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 19, 2014