MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934889136 · doi:10.1177/1757975918811102

Building the capacity – examining the impact of evidence-based public health trainings in Europe: a mixed methods approach

2019· article· en· W2934889136 on OpenAlex
Natalicio Serrano, Günter Diem, Vilius Jonas Grabauskas, Aushra Shatchkute, Sylvie Stachenko, Anjali Deshpande, Kathleen N. Gillespie, Elizabeth A. Baker, Erkki Vartinaien, Ross C. Brownson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Promotion · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedical educationPublic healthMedicineCapacity buildingEvidence-based practicePsychologyNursingFamily medicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.873
GPT teacher head0.709
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it