Welcome to CDC Stacks | Importance of scientific resources among local public health practitioners - 38543 | CDC Public Access
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Importance of scientific resources among local public health practitioners
Filetype[PDF - 228.51 KB]


Details:
  • Pubmed ID:
    25689176
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC4355705
  • Funding:
    U48 DP001903/DP/NCCDPHP CDC HHS/United States
    U48/DP001903/DP/NCCDPHP CDC HHS/United States
  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Description:
    Objectives

    This study examined the perceived importance of scientific resources for decision-making, among local health department (LHD) practitioners in the U.S.

    Methods

    This cross-sectional study used data from LHD practitioners (n=849). Respondents ranked important decision-making resources, methods for learning about public health research, and academic journal use. Descriptive statistics were calculated and logistic regression was used to measure associations of individual and LHD characteristics with importance of scientific resources.

    Results

    Systematic reviews of scientific literature (24.7%) was most frequently ranked as important among scientific resources, followed by scientific reports (15.9%), general literature review articles (6.5%), and one or a few scientific studies (4.8%). Graduate-level education (aORs ranging from 1.7 to 3.5), larger LHD size (aORs ranging from 2.0 to 3.5), and leadership support (aOR = 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 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.