Skip to main content

Table 4 Characteristics of evidence for PH

From: “Layers of translation” - evidence literacy in public health practice: a qualitative secondary analysis

Timely. We want data to be timely. We want to know what’s going on now, not data that’s three years old and that’s always a hurdle for people to get over and get through and work through.
Relevant. Canadian Dietitian’s Association has lots of diet evidence and it’s rated, but it’s mostly clinical right now. It’s starting to look at public health nutrition evidence and community nutrition practice [which is more relevant].
Regularly updated. …to pull together the data to you know, update it on an ongoing basis to put it in front of the decision-makers.
Synthesized. So being the age that I am and being very comfortable with Internet research, I often go to the Cochrane database first of all to have a look to see if there’s any evidence out there that people have agreed on.
At different levels. Well the level of evidence – and we can go back to the old Canadian primary prevention guidelines. What were those called? The levels of evidence were a, b, c, d, and e.
Manageable bite sized pieces. Unfortunately, it can’t be an evidence paper that’s ten pages long. It has to be something that at the operational level you can scan it and get the evidence bites out of it and then incorporate it into your plans.
Trustworthy. If the CDC publishes something or the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit – we feel that it meets a certain standard that we can expect…. and because it’s from a stakeholder we trust, we read that evidence with interest.