Background
Methods
Results
Respondent characteristics
Characteristic | n (%)a,b |
---|---|
Highest degree earned | |
Doctoral | 14 (9.9) |
Master of Public Health | 23 (16.3) |
Other master’s degree | 46 (32.6) |
Nursing | 21 (14.9) |
Bachelor’s degree or less | 37 (26.2) |
Program area | |
Obesity, physical activity, nutrition | 36 (25.0)c |
Tobacco | 27 (18.8) |
Cancer | 19 (13.2) |
Diabetes/cardiovascular health | 11 (7.6) |
Health promotion | 52 (36.1) |
School health | 20 (13.9) |
Environmental health | 23 (16.0) |
Maternal and child health | 22 (15.3) |
Communicable diseases/immunizations | 26 (18.1) |
Epidemiology or evaluation | 35 (24.3) |
Otherd | 48 (33.3) |
Agency or organization type | |
State health department | 38 (26.4) |
Local health department (city or county) | 80 (55.6) |
University | 7 (4.9) |
Community-based organization | 7 (4.9) |
Other specifiede | 12 (8.3) |
Job position | |
Program manager or coordinator | 51 (35.4) |
Health educator or community health worker | 36 (25.0) |
Epidemiologist or statistician | 9 (6.3) |
Division, Department or Bureau Head/Director/Deputy | 16 (11.1) |
Academic researcher or educator | 7 (4.9) |
Program planner or evaluator | 7 (4.9) |
Other specifiedf | 18 (12.5) |
Years worked in public health, mean ± SD | 9.5 ± 7.2 |
Course benefits
% Agree/Strongly agree | Total n (%) | SHD n (%) | LHD n (%) | Other n (%) | P-value* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Acquire knowledge about a new subject | 126 (87.5) | 30 (78.9) | 73 (91.2) | 23 (88.5) | .17 |
See applications for this knowledge in my work | 122 (84.7) | 30 (78.9) | 67 (93.8) | 25 (96.2) | .16 |
Make scientifically informed decisions at work | 112 (77.8) | 31 (81.6) | 62 (77.5) | 19 (73.1) | .72 |
Become a better leader who promotes evidence-based decision making | 113 (79.0) | 29 (76.3) | 62 (78.5) | 22 (84.6) | .71 |
Adapt an intervention to a community’s needs while keeping it evidence based | 89 (61.9) | 26 (68.4) | 42 (52.5) | 21 (80.8) | .02 |
Communicate better with co-workers | 83 (57.6) | 23 (60.5) | 44 (55.0) | 16 (61.5) | .77 |
Develop a rationale for a policy change | 83 (57.6) | 20 (52.6) | 49 (61.3) | 14 (53.8) | .62 |
Teach others how to use/apply the information in the EBPH course | 80 (55.9) | 20 (54.1) | 41 (51.2) | 19 (73.1) | .15 |
Identify and compare the costs and benefits of a program or policy | 80 (55.6) | 19 (50.0) | 48 (60.0) | 13 (50.0) | .49 |
Read reports and articles | 78 (54.2) | 21 (55.3) | 41 (51.2) | 16 (61.5) | .65 |
Implement evidence-based practices in a CDC cooperative agreement or other federal program | 60 (42.3) | 22 (57.9) | 31 (39.7) | 7 (26.9) | .04 |
Prepare a policy briefing for administrators or state or local legislative officials | 46 (31.9) | 12 (31.6) | 27 (33.8) | 7 (26.9) | .81 |
Obtain funding for programs at work | 45 (31.2) | 14 (36.8) | 23 (28.7) | 8 (30.8) | .67 |
Use of course materials, resources and skills
At least monthly… | Total n (%) | SHD n (%) | LHD n (%) | Other n (%) | p-value* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Searched the scientific literature for information on programs | 47 (32.9) | 17 (44.7) | 18 (22.8) | 12 (46.2) | .02 |
Used the EBPH materials/skills in evaluating a program | 31 (21.8) | 14 (36.8) | 9 (11.5) | 8 (30.8) | .004 |
Used the EBPH materials/skills in modifying an existing program | 28 (19.7) | 10 (26.3) | 11 (14.1) | 7 (26.9) | .18 |
Used the EBPH materials/skills in planning a new program | 27 (18.9) | 9 (23.7) | 10 (12.7) | 8 (30.8) | .08 |
Used the EBPH materials/skills for grant applications | 16 (11.3) | 4 (10.5) | 9 (11.5) | 3 (12.0) | .98 |
Referred to the EBPH readings that were provided | 15 (10.6) | 4 (10.5) | 7 (9.0) | 4 (15.4) | .65 |
Responses to open-ended questions
Theme | Selected quotes |
---|---|
Hands-on exercises and group discussion | • The exercises that involved finding and using data on the internet were very valuable. • Working in groups to figure out problems. • Small group discussion and group work developing examples of EBPH. |
Networking and sharing ideas | • Networking with other people in my community and who are working on developing a community health improvement plan. • Interactions and exchange of ideas among academics, state agency staff and practice community. • Interaction with other team members to discuss ways to improve or work with EBPH methods. |
Learning the overall EBPH process | • Observing a more efficient and effective way of the things that I was doing. • Realizing that it was not as intimidating as I imagined it would be. It is important to recognize and become intentional in utilizing EBPH although it takes more time while learning and putting into practice it will save time eventually in every program. • Explanation of concepts and defining things like logic models. I do not come from public health, so it was very helpful for me to have the basics defined and applied to more complex information. |
Learning about new resources | • The most useful part was learning how to use available resources to aid in finding evidence that would be used in decision-making. • Having the online resources to be able to find evidence based best practices. I have used those sites to review programs when considering new avenues to expand into. • Utilizing data and information to select evidence-based strategies/programs |
Concepts tied to public health practice | • Having a tangible reference as to what “evidenced-based public health strategies” meant and how they could be used in our everyday work lives. • Presenters applying the lecture to local public health programs. • Having practical examples related to public health so it makes sense. |
Economic evaluation/return on investment (ROI) module | • Everything with cost-benefit analysis. My agency is currently working on our strategic plan, and one area that we are focusing on is financial impact of our programs and staff. This has helped me understand our current budget justification process more, and it will hopefully help us justify monetary need increases in future budgets. • The information on return on investment, since I’ve either mentioned it or brought materials to light during strategic planning meetings. |
Theme | Selected quotes |
---|---|
More hands-on exercises | • More hands-on and situational work applicable to programs, less lecture. • More in-depth case studies; more class participation activities. • More small group interaction/real-life application throughout each segment of the training would be helpful. |
Provide follow-up trainings as way to refresh | • Maybe offer continuing or follow-up training to keep us fresh. • More follow up…possibly a meeting six months after. • Refresher courses one time per year where each participant could perhaps bring an example to present to others. • Please provide follow-up trainings for alumni. |
Time (shorter or longer) spent on specific modules | • Perhaps by spending a little less time on Module 4 (developing a concise statement), more time can be spent on economic evaluation. • The most challenging concept to grasp for most of our class was the economic assessment/evaluation piece and we did not seem to have enough time devoted to it. I know most public health staff do not get the opportunity to utilize or incorporate this knowledge into their work, especially since most positions are categorically funded. But this is an area I wish I could have spent more time as it is becoming more and more relevant to my work. • Cost-benefit section needs to be on its own. Perhaps allow individuals a day (or so) to work on that type of information when applying it to programs. |
Ways to make content easier to digest | • Maybe breaking the information into chunks. It was a lot of information to absorb in two days. • Spread out content over time so there are manageable chunks to apply in practice. |
More practice examples | • Tips on how to use EBPH when we are often unable to change any part of our contract work - we often have little program flexibility. • Bring in those that have implemented it into a project and speak about the project and changes that were made. • Possibly more real life examples of how programs and various job positions can incorporate it in their work. |
Comparison to traditional PRC-led courses
Benefits from EBPH training (% Agree/Strongly Agree) | 2005–2011 participants from traditional format [19] | 2010–2012 participants from train-the-trainer format | Z statisticb |
---|---|---|---|
N = 296a | N = 144 | ||
n (%) | n (%) | ||
Acquire knowledge about a new subject | 195 (78) | 126 (88) | 2.34 |
See applications for this knowledge in my work | 204 (82) | 122 (85) | 0.69 |
Make scientifically informed decisions at work | 184 (74) | 112 (78) | 0.84 |
Become a better leader who promotes evidence-based decision making | 198 (80) | 113 (79) | -0.24 |
Adapt an intervention to a community’s needs while keeping it evidence based | 126 (51) | 89 (62) | 2.09 |
Communicate better with co-workers | 145 (59) | 83 (58) | -0.27 |
Develop a rationale for a policy change | 128 (52) | 83 (58) | 1.07 |
Teach others how to use/apply the information in the EBPH course | 144 (58) | 80 (56) | -0.40 |
Identify and compare the costs and benefits of a program or policy | 121 (49) | 80 (56) | 1.26 |
Read reports and articles | 141 (57) | 78 (54) | -0.52 |
Implement evidence-based practices in a CDC cooperative agreement or other federal program | 149 (60) | 60 (42) | -3.37 |
Prepare a policy briefing for administrators or state or local legislative officials | 72 (29) | 46 (32) | 0.60 |
Obtain funding for programs at work | 69 (28) | 45 (31) | 0.67 |
Frequency of use of EBPH course materials/resources (At least monthly) | |||
Searched the scientific literature for information on programs | 105 (41) | 47 (33) | -1.60 |
Used the EBPH materials/skills in evaluating a program | 66 (26) | 31 (22) | -0.94 |
Used the EBPH materials/skills in modifying an existing program | 67 (26) | 28 (20) | -1.42 |
Used the EBPH materials/skills in planning a new program | 54 (21) | 27 (19) | -0.50 |
Used the EBPH materials/skills for grant applications | 23 (9) | 16 (11) | 0.74 |
Referred to the EBPH readings that were provided | 31 (12) | 15 (11) | -0.42 |