Differences in Definitions of EBPH and Evidence: Implications for Communication with Practitioners

Authors

Robert E. Aronson, Taylor UniversityFollow
Kay Lovelace, University of North Carolina at GreensboroFollow
Mark Smith, Guilford County Department of Public Health
Gulzar H. Shah, Georgia Southern UniversityFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

12-2014

Publication Title

American Journal of Public Health

DOI

10.2105/AJPH.2014.10412e40.2

ISSN

1541-0048

Abstract

In this study, we interviewed twelve members of an expert panel to elicit their views on Evidence-based Public Health (EBPH), including how they define EBPH, what constitutes “evidence”, and what LHDs do that can be described as EBPH. Telephone interviews lasting 60 minutes were recorded and transcribed for basic content analysis. Experts differed in their definitions of EBPH and their views of what constitutes evidence. Definitions of EBPH ranged from the adoption and implementation of rigorously tested interventions to the application of evidence to decision making for population health improvement. Views on what constitutes evidence also varied, from strict “evidence from science” to broader “evidence from experience.” Because of these differences in meaning, our study suggests we use more concrete and specific messaging for what practitioners are expected to do.

Recommended Citation

Aronson, Robert E., Kay Lovelace, Mark Smith, Gulzar H. Shah. 2014. "Differences in Definitions of EBPH and Evidence: Implications for Communication with Practitioners." American Journal of Public Health, 104 (12): e40-e40. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.10412e40.2
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/health-policy-facpubs/95