Use and value of systematic reviews in English local authority public health: a qualitative study
Authors:
Open Access
- 13 July 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Public Health
- Vol. 20 (1) , 1-11
Abstract
Background: Responsibility for public health in England transferred from the National Health Service to local authorities in 2013, representing a different decision-making environment. Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence for clinical decision-making but little is known about their use in local government public health. This study aimed to explore the extent to which public health decision-makers in local authorities engage with systematic reviews and how they do so. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior public health practitioners (n = 14) in Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities. Sampling was purposive and involved contacting Directors of Public Health directly and snowballing through key contacts. Face-to-face or telephone interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework Method. Results: Public health practitioners described using systematic reviews directly in decision-making and engaging with them more widely in a range of ways, often through a personal commitment to professional development. They saw themselves as having a role to advocate for the use of rigorous evidence, including systematic reviews, in the wider local authority. Systematic reviews were highly valued in principle and public health practitioners had relevant skills to find and appraise them. However, the extent of use varied by individual and local authority and was limited by the complexity of decision-making and various barriers. Barriers included that there were a limited number of systematic reviews available on certain public health topics, such as the wider determinants of health, and that the narrow focus of reviews was not reflective of complex public health decisions facing local authorities. Reviews were used alongside a range of other evidence types, including grey literature. The source of evidence was often considered an indicator of quality, with specific organisations, such as Public Health England, NICE and Cochrane, particularly trusted. Conclusions: Research use varies and should be considered within the specific decision-making and political context. There is a need for systematic reviews to be more reflective of the decisions facing local authority public health teams.Keywords
This publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit:
- A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakersBMC Health Services Research, 2014
- Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health researchBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2013
- Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and cliniciansCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012
- Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews by health policymakers and managers: A systematic reviewImplementation Science, 2011
- Real world reviews: a beginner's guide to undertaking systematic reviews of public health policy interventionsJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2009
- Tackling the wider social determinants of health and health inequalities: evidence from systematic reviewsJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2009
- Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventionsHealth Promotion International, 2005
- New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government AgenciesScience Communication, 2004
- Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusionsBMJ, 2003
- The Many Meanings of Research UtilizationPublic Administration Review, 1979