Building the capacity – examining the impact of evidence-based public health trainings in Europe: a mixed methods approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Since 2002, a course entitled ‘Evidence-Based Public Health (EBPH): A Course in Noncommunicable Disease (NCD) Prevention’ has been taught annually in Europe as a collaboration between the Prevention Research Center in St Louis and other international organizations. The core purpose of this training is to strengthen the capacity of public health professionals, in order to apply and adapt evidence-based programmes in NCD prevention. The purpose of the present study is to assess the effectiveness of this EBPH course, in order to inform and improve future EBPH trainings. Methods: A total of 208 individuals participated in the European EBPH course between 2007 and 2016. Of these, 86 (41%) completed an online survey. Outcomes measured include frequency of use of EBPH skills/materials/resources, benefits of using EBPH and barriers to using EBPH. Analysis was performed to see if time since taking the course affected EBPH effectiveness. Participants were then stratified by frequency of EBPH use (low v. high) and asked to participate in in-depth telephone interviews to further examine the long-term impact of the course ( n = 11 (6 low use, 5 high use)). Findings: The most commonly reported benefits among participants included: acquiring knowledge about a new subject (95%), seeing applications for this knowledge in their own work (84%), and becoming a better leader to promote evidence-based decision-making (82%). Additionally, not having enough funding for continued training in EBPH (44%), co-workers not having EBPH training (33%) and not having enough time to implement EBPH approaches (30%) were the most commonly reported barriers to using EBPH. Interviews indicated that work-place and leadership support were important in facilitating the use of EBPH. Conclusion: Although the EBPH course effectively benefits participants, barriers remain towards widely implementing evidence-based approaches. Reaching and communicating with those in leadership roles may facilitate the growth of EBPH across countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.182 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".