| Literature DB >> 26779537 |
Hayfaa A Wahabi1, Amna Rehana Siddiqui2, Ashry G Mohamed2, Ali M Al-Hazmi3, Nasriah Zakaria4, Lubna A Al-Ansary1.
Abstract
Translation of research evidence into public health programs is lagging in Eastern Mediterranean Region. Graduate level public health curriculum at King Saud University (KSU), College of Medicine, Riyadh, is designed to equip students to integrate best available evidence in public health decision making. The objectives of study were to explore students' opinion about the evidence based public health (EBPH) courses and to survey the knowledge, opinion, and attitude of the students towards EBPH and perceived barriers for implementation of EBPH in decision making in public health. EBPH courses are designed based on a sequential framework. A survey was conducted at the completion of EBPH courses. Forty-five graduate students were invited to complete a validated self-administered questionnaire. It included questions about demography, opinion, and attitude towards EBPH and perceived barriers towards implementation of EBPH in the work environment. The response rate was 73%. Mean age of students was 30.1 (SD 2.3) years, and 51% were males. More than 80% had sound knowledge and could appreciate the importance of EBPH. The main perceived barriers to incorporate EBPH in decision making were lack of system of communication between researchers and policy makers and scarcity of research publications related to the public health problems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26779537 PMCID: PMC4686631 DOI: 10.1155/2015/576953
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Core courses for evidence-based public health MPH/SBCM curricula.
| Course | Description | Competences learned |
|---|---|---|
| Basic evidence-based healthcare | The course describes the basic concepts of evidence-based decision making, type of evidence, and sources for evidence in public health | (i) Searching the main biomedical literature databases |
|
| ||
| Advanced evidence-based healthcare | The course introduces the students to critical appraisal of the main study designs; in addition it introduces systematic reviews, practice guidelines, and policy briefs | Evaluating and summarizing the evidence |
|
| ||
| Systematic review | The course is in depth teaching on how to use evidence from systematic reviews for decision making. It includes quantifying the public health problem by using local data, formulating answerable question for effective intervention, searching for relevant systematic reviews, critically appraising the systematic review, and deciding on the impact of the intervention and if that impact is expected to address the public health problem. | (i) Searching and evaluating relevant systematic review for intervention |
Supporting courses for evidence-based public health in the MPH/SBCM curricula.
| Course | Description of relevant contents | Competences learned |
|---|---|---|
| Research methodology | The course describes different types of quantitative and qualitative study designs | Characteristics, applications, and limitations of different study design and their uses as evidence as epidemiological tools to detect and quantify public health problems |
|
| ||
| Health economics | Principles of health economics | (i) Economic evaluation of intervention |
|
| ||
| Health policy | Principles of health policy and programs development | Developing and evaluating programs for public health |
|
| ||
| Health informatics | Surveillance system and registries | Use of local data for quantifying public health problems, monitoring, and evaluation of programs for intervention |
Figure 1Sequential training framework for evidence-based public health. Adapted from Brownson et al. [1].
Characteristics of the MPH/SBCM students.
| Character | Number (%) | Mean ± SD | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 30.1 ± 2.3 | 25–37 | |
| Gender (male) | 17 (51%) | ||
| University degree | |||
| Medical doctor | 24 (73%) | ||
| Nurse/health educator | 5 (15%) | ||
| Pharmacist | 2 (6%) | ||
| Other | 2 (6%) | ||
| Sponsoring body for the MPH/SBCM | |||
| Ministry of Health | 23 (70%) | ||
| University | 7 (21%) | ||
| Others | 3 (9%) | ||
| Years since graduation from university | 5.3 ± 4.5 | 2–13 | |
| Years of working before joining the MPH/SBCM | 5.0 ± 3.2 | 0–10 | |
| Type of work before joining MPH | |||
| Clinical staff | 17 (52%) | ||
| University staff | 3 (9%) | ||
| Ministry of Health staff | 10 (30%) | ||
| Not worked before | 3 (9%) | ||
| Expected future position | |||
| Clinical staff | 1 (3%) | ||
| University staff | 6 (18%) | ||
| Ministry of Health staff | 12 (36%) | ||
| Uncertain | 13 (40%) | ||
| Other | 1 (3%) |
Students self-evaluated knowledge and skills after completion of EBPH courses.
| Skill or knowledge | Agree | Disagree | Uncertain |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| I can formulate a searchable public health problem | 30 (91%) | — | 3 (9%) |
| Search the relevant databases for the highest available evidence | 29 (88%) | 1 (3%) | 3 (9%) |
| Appraise the different types of studies and trials for external and internal validity | 21 (64%) | 4 (12%) | 8 (24%) |
| Evaluate the impact of intervention by interpreting the relative risk and odds ratio | 26 (79%) | 1 (3%) | 6 (18%) |
|
| |||
| Public health interventions require effective evaluations of health interventions carried out through research evidence | 31 (94%) | — | 2 (6%) |
|
| |||
| Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews are tools to demonstrate the efficacy of public preventive and curative health interventions | 30 (91%) | — | 3 (9%) |
|
| |||
| Observational studies and surveillance data are credible source of evidence in EBPH | 28 (85%) | 2 (6%) | 3 (9%) |
|
| |||
| Relative risk and odds ratio are measures used to quantify the effect of health interventions | 31 (94%) | — | 2 (6%) |
|
| |||
| Meta-analysis combines the results of different individual studies with the purpose of integrating the findings | 31 (94%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (3%) |
EBPH: evidence-based public health.
Opinion and attitude of students towards evidence-based public health.
| Statement | Agree | Disagree | Uncertain |
|---|---|---|---|
| EBPH is not suitable for application in the Arab countries | 2 (6%) | 22 (67%) | 9 (27%) |
| In my new position as a public health officer I will be able to make decision for intervention based on evidence | 27 (82%) | 2 (6%) | 4 (12%) |
| Systematic reviews contribute significantly to knowledge about prevention and treatment of disease | 33 (100%) | — | — |
| Application of research evidence in public health improves the health status of community | 28 (85%) | 1 (3%) | 4 (12%) |
| Public health interventions require effective evaluation of health interventions carried out through research evidence | 29 (88%) | — | 4 (12%) |
| Decisions in public health cannot be based on the results of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis but rather on the available budget | 10 (30%) | 13 (40%) | 10 (30%) |
| Systematic reviews are useful tool for decision making in public health | 30 (91%) | — | 3 (9%) |
EBPH: evidence-based public health.
Perceived barriers to evidence-based public health implementation.
| Barrier | Agree | Disagree | Uncertain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lack of forum of communication between researchers and public health decision makers | 29 (88%) | — | 4 (12%) |
| Lack of clear system and programs to incorporate evidence into decision | 30 (91%) | 1 (3%) | 2 (6%) |
| Lack of well qualified researchers and academicians in my working position | 10 (30%) | 10 (30%) | 13 (40%) |
| Lack of budget for research | 14 (42%) | 8 (24%) | 11 (34%) |
| Lack of culture of integrating research evidence into programs | 22 (67%) | 6 (18%) | 5 (15%) |
| Lack of public health related research publication in the Arab world | 29 (88%) | 2 (6%) | 2 (6%) |