Strategies to implement evidence-informed decision making at the organizational level: a rapid systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Achievement of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) requires the integration of evidence into all practice decisions by identifying and synthesizing evidence, then developing and executing plans to implement and evaluate changes to practice. This rapid systematic review synthesizes evidence for strategies for the implementation of EIDM across organizations, mapping facilitators and barriers to the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model for behaviour change. The review was conducted to support leadership at organizations delivering public health services (health promotion, communicable disease prevention) to drive change toward evidence-informed public health. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in multiple databases and by reviewing publications of key authors. Articles that describe interventions to drive EIDM within teams, departments, or organizations were eligible for inclusion. For each included article, quality was assessed, and details of the intervention, setting, outcomes, facilitators and barriers were extracted. A convergent integrated approach was undertaken to analyze both quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles are included. Studies were conducted in primary care, public health, social services, and occupational health settings. Strategies to implement EIDM included the establishment of Knowledge Broker-type roles, building the EIDM capacity of staff, and research or academic partnerships. Facilitators and barriers align with the COM-B model for behaviour change. Facilitators for capability include the development of staff knowledge and skill, establishing specialized roles, and knowledge sharing across the organization, though staff turnover and subsequent knowledge loss was a barrier to capability. For opportunity, facilitators include the development of processes or mechanisms to support new practices, forums for learning and skill development, and protected time, and barriers include competing priorities. Facilitators identified for motivation include supportive organizational culture, expectations for new practices to occur, recognition and positive reinforcement, and strong leadership support. Barriers include negative attitudes toward new practices, and lack of understanding and support from management. CONCLUSION: This review provides a comprehensive analysis of facilitators and barriers for the implementation of EIDM in organizations for public health, mapped to the COM-B model for behaviour change. The existing literature for strategies to support EIDM in public health illustrates several facilitators and barriers linked to realizing EIDM. Knowledge of these factors will help senior leadership develop and implement EIDM strategies tailored to their organization, leading to increased likelihood of implementation success. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022318994.
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 | 0.210 | 0.386 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".