eISSN: Applied editor@oxfordianfoundation.com
Open Access

Building an Evidence Informed, Inclusive and Learning Oriented Public Health System Through Workforce Capacity, Organizational Change and Knowledge Translation

Universidad de Costa Rica, Costa Rica

Abstract

Public health systems across high income and middle income countries are facing unprecedented pressure to respond to complex population health challenges that are shaped by social inequities, stigma, rapidly changing disease patterns, and growing demands for accountability. Within this context, the importance of evidence informed decision making has been repeatedly emphasized as a core principle of effective public health practice. However, despite decades of advocacy for evidence based and evidence informed public health, a persistent gap remains between what research suggests should be done and what is actually implemented in everyday policy and practice. This gap is not merely technical but is deeply rooted in organizational culture, workforce capacity, governance structures, and the broader social and political environment in which public health agencies operate. Drawing on a comprehensive body of literature from Canada and other comparable health systems, this article develops an integrated theoretical and empirical analysis of how evidence informed public health can be strengthened through deliberate investments in workforce development, organizational change, and knowledge translation infrastructure.

The article situates evidence informed public health within a broader commitment to health equity and stigma reduction, arguing that evidence is not value neutral but must be interpreted and applied through an inclusive lens that recognizes structural disadvantage and lived experience. It draws on systematic reviews of public health interventions, workforce training programs, and implementation strategies to show that evidence informed approaches are associated with improved population health outcomes and strong economic returns, but only when they are supported by enabling organizational and system level conditions. Using conceptual frameworks such as the COM B model and the behaviour change wheel, the article explains how individual knowledge, motivation, and skills interact with organizational opportunity structures to shape evidence use in practice.

Keywords

References

πŸ“„ 1. Andersen M, Gulen S, Fonnes S, Andresen K, Rosenberg J. Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;124:85 to 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.05.011
πŸ“„ 2. Borah R, Brown A, Capers P, Kaiser K. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545
πŸ“„ 3. CADTH. About the Rapid Response Service. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2021. Available from https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/what-we-do/products-services/rapid-response-service
πŸ“„ 4. Chauhan AS, Sharma D, Mehndiratta A, Gupta N, Garg B, Kumar AP, et al. Validating the rigour of adaptive methods of economic evaluation. BMJ Global Health. 2023;8:12277.
πŸ“„ 5. Eregata GT, Hailu A, Geletu ZA, Memirie ST, Johansson KA, Stenberg K, et al. Revision of the Ethiopian Essential Health Service Package: An Explication of the Process and Methods Used. Health Systems Reform. 2020;6(1):12.
πŸ“„ 6. Jorgensen N. Prioritize Your Priority Setting Efforts When Updating an HBP: A Framework for LMICs. iHEA. 2023.
πŸ“„ 7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):264 to 269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
πŸ“„ 8. NCPE Ireland. Rapid review template. National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics Ireland.
πŸ“„ 9. Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff J, Akl E, Brennan S, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2021;10(1):1 to 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
πŸ“„ 10. Peacocke EF, Heupink LF, Ananthakrishnan A, Fronsdal KB. Is it the Right Topic? An Overlooked Stage in the Institutionalization of Health Technology Assessment. Health Systems Reform. 2023;9(3).
πŸ“„ 11. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1766
πŸ“„ 12. Prinja S. Systematic Priority Setting for UHC in India Using Economic Evidence. iHEA. 2023.
πŸ“„ 13. Runjic E, Behmen D, Pieper D, Mathes T, Tricco A, Moher D, Puljak L. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019;111:41 to 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.006
πŸ“„ 14. Shields G, Pennington B, Bullement A, Wright S, Elvidge J. Out of Date or Best Before? A Commentary on the Relevance of Economic Evaluations Over Time. PharmacoEconomics. 2022;40(3):249 to 256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01116-4
πŸ“„ 15. Shojania K, Sampson M, Ansari M, Ji J, Garritty C, Rader T, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009914
πŸ“„ 16. World Health Organization. Health Technology Assessment and Health Benefit Package Survey 2020 to 2021. Geneva. 2021.
Views: 0    Downloads: 0
Views
Downloads