NDLI: 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

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Wolfenden, Luke Hall, Alix Bauman, Adrian Milat, Andrew Hodder, Rebecca Webb, Emily Mooney, Kaitlin Yoong, Serene Sutherland, Rachel McCrabb, Sam
Abstract	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.
Related Links	https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12961-024-01144-4.pdf
Ending Page	13
Page Count	13
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	14784505
DOI	10.1186/s12961-024-01144-4
Journal	Health Research Policy and Systems
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	22
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2024-05-14
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Health Administration R & D Technology Policy Medicine Public Health Health Services Research Health Policy R & D/Technology Policy Medicine/Public Health
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Health Policy
Journal Impact Factor	3.6/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	4.3/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sexual and reproductive health self-care interventions in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: findings from a cross-sectional values and preferences survey to inform WHO normative guidance on self-care interventions

Optimizing patient autonomy: a discrete choice experiment on preferences and disparities in healthcare provider selection

Cross-cutting lessons from the Decision-Maker Led Implementation Research initiative

Erratum to: Government and charity funding of cancer research: public preferences and choices

Sustainability of public health interventions: where are the gaps?

Analysis of health service utilization and influencing factors due to COVID-19 in Beijing: a large cross-sectional survey

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences

Strategies to adapt and implement health system guidelines and recommendations: a scoping review

From trials to communities: implementation and scale-up of health behaviour interventions

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

Similar Documents

Sexual and reproductive health self-care interventions in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: findings from a cross-sectional values and preferences survey to inform WHO normative guidance on self-care interventions

Optimizing patient autonomy: a discrete choice experiment on preferences and disparities in healthcare provider selection

Cross-cutting lessons from the Decision-Maker Led Implementation Research initiative

Erratum to: Government and charity funding of cancer research: public preferences and choices

Sustainability of public health interventions: where are the gaps?

Analysis of health service utilization and influencing factors due to COVID-19 in Beijing: a large cross-sectional survey

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences

Strategies to adapt and implement health system guidelines and recommendations: a scoping review

From trials to communities: implementation and scale-up of health behaviour interventions

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