TY - JOUR
T1 - Importance of scientific resources among local public health practitioners
AU - Fields, Robert P.
AU - Stamatakis, Katherine A.
AU - Duggan, Kathleen
AU - Brownson, Ross C.
PY - 2015/4/1
Y1 - 2015/4/1
N2 - Objectives: We examined the perceived importance of scientific resources for decision-making among local health department (LHD) practitioners in the United States. Methods: We used data from LHD practitioners (n = 849). Respondents ranked important decision-making resources, methods for learning about public health research, and academic journal use. We calculated descriptive statistics and used logistic regression to measure associations of individual and LHD characteristics with importance of scientific resources. Results: Systematic reviews of scientific literature (24.7%) were most frequently ranked as important among scientific resources, followed by scientific reports (15.9%), general literature review articles (6.5%), and 1 or a few scientific studies (4.8%). Graduate-level education (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] = 1.7-3.5), larger LHD size (AORs = 2.0-3.5), and leadership support (AOR = 1.6; 95%confidence interval = 1.1, 2.3) were associated with a higher ranking of importance of scientific resources. Conclusions: Graduate training, larger LHD size, and leadership that supports a culture of evidence-based decision-making may increase the likelihood of practitioners viewing scientific resources as important. Targeting communication channels that practitioners view as important can also guide research dissemination strategies.
AB - Objectives: We examined the perceived importance of scientific resources for decision-making among local health department (LHD) practitioners in the United States. Methods: We used data from LHD practitioners (n = 849). Respondents ranked important decision-making resources, methods for learning about public health research, and academic journal use. We calculated descriptive statistics and used logistic regression to measure associations of individual and LHD characteristics with importance of scientific resources. Results: Systematic reviews of scientific literature (24.7%) were most frequently ranked as important among scientific resources, followed by scientific reports (15.9%), general literature review articles (6.5%), and 1 or a few scientific studies (4.8%). Graduate-level education (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] = 1.7-3.5), larger LHD size (AORs = 2.0-3.5), and leadership support (AOR = 1.6; 95%confidence interval = 1.1, 2.3) were associated with a higher ranking of importance of scientific resources. Conclusions: Graduate training, larger LHD size, and leadership that supports a culture of evidence-based decision-making may increase the likelihood of practitioners viewing scientific resources as important. Targeting communication channels that practitioners view as important can also guide research dissemination strategies.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84924710365
U2 - 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302323
DO - 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302323
M3 - Article
C2 - 25689176
AN - SCOPUS:84924710365
SN - 0090-0036
VL - 105
SP - S288-S294
JO - American journal of public health
JF - American journal of public health
ER -