Summary The global pandemic of physical inactivity requires a multisectoral, multidisciplinary public-health response. Scaling up interventions that are capable of increasing levels of physical ...activity in populations across the varying cultural, geographic, social, and economic contexts worldwide is challenging, but feasible. In this paper, we review the factors that could help to achieve this. We use a mixed-methods approach to comprehensively examine these factors, drawing on the best available evidence from both evidence-to-practice and practice-to-evidence methods. Policies to support active living across society are needed, particularly outside the health-care sector, as demonstrated by some of the successful examples of scale up identified in this paper. Researchers, research funders, and practitioners and policymakers in culture, education, health, leisure, planning, and transport, and civil society as a whole, all have a role. We should embrace the challenge of taking action to a higher level, aligning physical activity and health objectives with broader social, environmental, and sustainable development goals.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
There is growing urgency to tackle issues of equity and justice in the USA and worldwide. Health equity, a framing that moves away from a deficit mindset of what society is doing poorly (disparities) ...to one that is positive about what society can achieve, is becoming more prominent in health research that uses implementation science approaches. Equity begins with justice-health differences often reflect societal injustices. Applying the perspectives and tools of implementation science has potential for immediate impact to improve health equity.
We propose a vision and set of action steps for making health equity a more prominent and central aim of implementation science, thus committing to conduct implementation science through equity-focused principles to achieve this vision in U.S. research and practice. We identify and discuss challenges in current health disparities approaches that do not fully consider social determinants. Implementation research challenges are outlined in three areas: limitations of the evidence base, underdeveloped measures and methods, and inadequate attention to context. To address these challenges, we offer recommendations that seek to (1) link social determinants with health outcomes, (2) build equity into all policies, (3) use equity-relevant metrics, (4) study what is already happening, (5) integrate equity into implementation models, (6) design and tailor implementation strategies, (7) connect to systems and sectors outside of health, (8) engage organizations in internal and external equity efforts, (9) build capacity for equity in implementation science, and (10) focus on equity in dissemination efforts.
Every project in implementation science should include an equity focus. For some studies, equity is the main goal of the project and a central feature of all aspects of the project. In other studies, equity is part of a project but not the singular focus. In these studies, we should, at a minimum, ensure that we "leave no one behind" and that existing disparities are not widened. With a stronger commitment to health equity from funders, researchers, practitioners, advocates, evaluators, and policy makers, we can harvest the rewards of the resources being invested in health-related research to eliminate disparities, resulting in health equity.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Promotion of physical activity is a priority for health agencies. We searched for reviews of physical activity interventions, published between 2000 and 2011, and identified effective, promising, or ...emerging interventions from around the world. The informational approaches of community-wide and mass media campaigns, and short physical activity messages targeting key community sites are recommended. Behavioural and social approaches are effective, introducing social support for physical activity within communities and worksites, and school-based strategies that encompass physical education, classroom activities, after-school sports, and active transport. Recommended environmental and policy approaches include creation and improvement of access to places for physical activity with informational outreach activities, community-scale and street-scale urban design and land use, active transport policy and practices, and community-wide policies and planning. Thus, many approaches lead to acceptable increases in physical activity among people of various ages, and from different social groups, countries, and communities.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed a series of "fault lines" in our public health system, which include health inequities, disinformation, and insufficient surveillance systems.1 This ...once-in-a-century crisis also presents significant opportunities to take stock of organizational capacities (including strengths and gaps), identify innovations to address challenges, and mobilize multiple sectors for action. In this issue of AJPH, Bunnell et al. (p. 1489) make the case for a new strategic public health science that seeks to fill the many gaps uncovered during the COVID-19 pandemic. In their insightful and timely article, the authors delineate six domains in need of urgent attention: health equity science, climate science, data science and modernization, communication science, policy analysis and translation, and scientific collaboration.This scientific playbook, crafted by a team of scientists and public health leaders from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), builds on decades of advances in applied public health science from the CDC. For example, the Epidemic Intelligence Service, established in 1951, is the largest training program of its kind in the world and via its officers has investigated hundreds of disease outbreaks and epidemics and formalized many of the concepts of field epidemiology.2 In seminal work published in 1963,3 Langmuir laid the foundation for public health surveillance in the United States and globally. Since the 1960s, the CDC has developed innovations in biostatistics, ranging from mathematical modeling for infectious diseases to methods for evaluating surveillance systems.4The CDC has also led in the development of the "Guide to Community Preventive Services" (the Community Guide), a systematic review that makes recommendations for the use of public health programs and policies based on scientific evidence.5
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, DOBA, FSPLJ, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VSZLJ
Timely implementation of principles of evidence-based public health (EBPH) is critical for bridging the gap between discovery of new knowledge and its application. Public health organizations need ...sufficient capacity (the availability of resources, structures, and workforce to plan, deliver, and evaluate the preventive dose of an evidence-based intervention) to move science to practice. We review principles of EBPH, the importance of capacity building to advance evidence-based approaches, promising approaches for capacity building, and future areas for research and practice. Although there is general agreement among practitioners and scientists on the importance of EBPH, there is less clarity on the definition of evidence, how to find it, and how, when, and where to use it. Capacity for EBPH is needed among both individuals and organizations. Capacity can be strengthened via training, use of tools, technical assistance, assessment and feedback, peer networking, and incentives. Modest investments in EBPH capacity building will foster more effective public health practice.
Evidence, in multiple forms, is a foundation of implementation science. For public health and clinical practice, evidence includes the following: type 1 evidence on etiology and burden; type 2 ...evidence on effectiveness of interventions; and type 3: evidence on dissemination and implementation (D&I) within context. To support a vision for development and use of evidence in D&I science that is more comprehensive and equitable (particularly for type 3 evidence), this article aims to clarify concepts of evidence, summarize ongoing debates about evidence, and provide a set of recommendations and tools/resources for addressing the "how-to" in filling evidence gaps most critical to advancing implementation science.
Because current conceptualizations of evidence have been relatively narrow and insufficiently characterized in our opinion, we identify and discuss challenges and debates about the uses, usefulness, and gaps in evidence for implementation science. A set of questions is proposed to assist in determining when evidence is sufficient for dissemination and implementation. Intersecting gaps include the need to (1) reconsider how the evidence base is determined, (2) improve understanding of contextual effects on implementation, (3) sharpen the focus on health equity in how we approach and build the evidence-base, (4) conduct more policy implementation research and evaluation, and (5) learn from audience and stakeholder perspectives. We offer 15 recommendations to assist in filling these gaps and describe a set of tools for enhancing the evidence most needed in implementation science.
To address our recommendations, we see capacity as a necessary ingredient to shift the field's approach to evidence. Capacity includes the "push" for implementation science where researchers are trained to develop and evaluate evidence which should be useful and feasible for implementers and reflect community or stakeholder priorities. Equally important, there has been inadequate training and too little emphasis on the "pull" for implementation science (e.g., training implementers, practice-based research). We suggest that funders and reviewers of research should adopt and support a more robust definition of evidence. By critically examining the evolving nature of evidence, implementation science can better fulfill its vision of facilitating widespread and equitable adoption, delivery, and sustainment of scientific advances.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Theories and frameworks (hereafter called models) enhance dissemination and implementation (D&I) research by making the spread of evidence-based interventions more likely. This work organizes and ...synthesizes these models by (1) developing an inventory of models used in D&I research; (2) synthesizing this information; and (3) providing guidance on how to select a model to inform study design and execution.
This review began with commonly cited models and model developers and used snowball sampling to collect models developed in any year from journal articles, presentations, and books. All models were analyzed and categorized in 2011 based on three author-defined variables: construct flexibility, focus on dissemination and/or implementation activities (D/I), and the socioecologic framework (SEF) level. Five-point scales were used to rate construct flexibility from broad to operational and D/I activities from dissemination-focused to implementation-focused. All SEF levels (system, community, organization, and individual) applicable to a model were also extracted. Models that addressed policy activities were noted.
Sixty-one models were included in this review. Each of the five categories in the construct flexibility and D/I scales had at least four models. Models were distributed across all levels of the SEF; the fewest models (n=8) addressed policy activities. To assist researchers in selecting and utilizing a model throughout the research process, the authors present and explain examples of how models have been used.
These findings may enable researchers to better identify and select models to inform their D&I work.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Research has the potential to influence US social policy; however, existing research in this area lacks a coherent message. The Model for Dissemination of Research provides a framework through which ...to synthesize lessons learned from research to date on the process of translating research to US policymakers.
The peer-reviewed and grey literature was systematically reviewed to understand common strategies for disseminating social policy research to policymakers in the United States. We searched Academic Search Premier, PolicyFile, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science from January 1980 through December 2019. Articles were independently reviewed and thematically analyzed by two investigators and organized using the Model for Dissemination of Research.
The search resulted in 5225 titles and abstracts for inclusion consideration. 303 full-text articles were reviewed with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. Common sources of research dissemination included government, academic researchers, the peer reviewed literature, and independent organizations. The most frequently disseminated research topics were health-related, and legislators and executive branch administrators were the most common target audience. Print materials and personal communication were the most common channels for disseminating research to policymakers. There was variation in dissemination channels by level of government (e.g., a more formal legislative process at the federal level compared with other levesl). Findings from this work suggest that dissemination is most effective when it starts early, galvanizes support, uses champions and brokers, considers contextual factors, is timely, relevant, and accessible, and knows the players and process.
Effective dissemination of research to US policymakers exists; yet, rigorous quantitative evaluation is rare. A number of cross-cutting strategies appear to enhance the translation of research evidence into policy.
Not registered.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
The requisite capacities and capabilities of the public health practitioner of the future are being driven by multiple forces of change, including public health agency accreditation, climate change, ...health in all policies, social media and informatics, demographic transitions, globalized travel, and the repercussions of the Affordable Care Act. We describe five critical capacities and capabilities that public health practitioners can build on to successfully prepare for and respond to these forces of change: systems thinking and systems methods, communication capacities, an entrepreneurial orientation, transformational ethics, and policy analysis and response. Equipping the public health practitioner with the requisite capabilities and capacities will require new content and methods for those in public health academia, as well as a recommitment to lifelong learning on the part of the practitioner, within an increasingly uncertain and polarized political environment.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, DOBA, FSPLJ, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VSZLJ
PDF
