BACKGROUND: Guidance based on a systematic assessment of the evidence base has become a fundamental tool in the cycle of evidence-based practice and policy internationally. The process of moving from the formal evidence base derived from research studies to the formation and agreement of recommendations is however acknowledged to be problematic, especially in public health; and the involvement of practitioners, service commissioners and service users in that process is both important and methodologically challenging. AIM: To test a structured process of developing evidence-based recommendations in public health while involving a broad constituency of practitioners, service commissioners and service user representatives. METHODS: As part of the development of national public health recommendations to promote and support breastfeeding in England, the methodological challenges of involving stakeholders were examined and addressed. There were three main stages: (i) an assessment of the formal evidence base (210 studies graded); (ii) electronic and fieldwork-based consultation with practitioners, service commissioners and service user representatives (563 participants), and an in-depth analytical consultation in three 'diagonal slice' workshops (89 participants); (iii) synthesis of the previous two stages. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The process resulted in widely agreed recommendations together with suggestions for implementation. It was very positively evaluated by participants and those likely to use the recommendations. Service users had a strong voice throughout and participated actively. This mix of methods allowed a transparent, accountable process for formulating recommendations based on scientific, theoretical, practical and expert evidence, with the added potential to enhance implementation.
BACKGROUND: Guidance based on a systematic assessment of the evidence base has become a fundamental tool in the cycle of evidence-based practice and policy internationally. The process of moving from the formal evidence base derived from research studies to the formation and agreement of recommendations is however acknowledged to be problematic, especially in public health; and the involvement of practitioners, service commissioners and service users in that process is both important and methodologically challenging. AIM: To test a structured process of developing evidence-based recommendations in public health while involving a broad constituency of practitioners, service commissioners and service user representatives. METHODS: As part of the development of national public health recommendations to promote and support breastfeeding in England, the methodological challenges of involving stakeholders were examined and addressed. There were three main stages: (i) an assessment of the formal evidence base (210 studies graded); (ii) electronic and fieldwork-based consultation with practitioners, service commissioners and service user representatives (563 participants), and an in-depth analytical consultation in three 'diagonal slice' workshops (89 participants); (iii) synthesis of the previous two stages. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The process resulted in widely agreed recommendations together with suggestions for implementation. It was very positively evaluated by participants and those likely to use the recommendations. Service users had a strong voice throughout and participated actively. This mix of methods allowed a transparent, accountable process for formulating recommendations based on scientific, theoretical, practical and expert evidence, with the added potential to enhance implementation.
Authors: Mark Petticrew; Margaret Whitehead; Sally J Macintyre; Hilary Graham; Matt Egan Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Margaret Whitehead; Mark Petticrew; Hilary Graham; Sally J Macintyre; Clare Bambra; Matt Egan Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Andrea Fiorillo; Mario Luciano; Valeria Del Vecchio; Gaia Sampogna; Carla Obradors-Tarragó; Mario Maj Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Lisa McDaid; Ross Thomson; Joanne Emery; Tim Coleman; Sue Cooper; Lucy Phillips; Felix Naughton Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Cath Jackson; Helen Bedford; Louise Condon; Annie Crocker; Carol Emslie; Lisa Dyson; Bridget Gallagher; Susan Kerr; Helen J Lewis; Julie Mytton; Sarah A Redsell; Frieda Schicker; Christine Shepherd; Lesley Smith; Linda Vousden; Francine M Cheater Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alison McFadden; Karl Atkin; Kerry Bell; Nicola Innes; Cath Jackson; Helen Jones; Steve MacGillivray; Lindsay Siebelt Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2016-11-14
Authors: Alison McFadden; Josephine M Green; Victoria Williams; Jenny McLeish; Felicia McCormick; Julia Fox-Rushby; Mary J Renfrew Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Mary J Renfrew; Helen Cheyne; Justine Craig; Elizabeth Duff; Fiona Dykes; Billie Hunter; Tina Lavender; Lesley Page; Mary Ross-Davie; Helen Spiby; Soo Downe Journal: Midwifery Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 2.372
Authors: Lisa Dyson; Helen Bedford; Louise Condon; Carol Emslie; Lana Ireland; Julie Mytton; Karen Overend; Sarah Redsell; Zoe Richardson; Cath Jackson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.295