Skip to main content
Article
Differences in Definitions of EBPH and Evidence: Implications for Communication with Practitioners
American Journal of Public Health
  • Robert E. Aronson, Taylor University
  • Kay Lovelace, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
  • Mark Smith, Guilford County Department of Public Health
  • Gulzar H. Shah, Georgia Southern University
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-1-2014
DOI
10.2105/AJPH.2014.10412e40.2
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.
Citation Information
Robert E. Aronson, Kay Lovelace, Mark Smith and Gulzar H. Shah. "Differences in Definitions of EBPH and Evidence: Implications for Communication with Practitioners" American Journal of Public Health Vol. 104 Iss. 12 (2014) p. e40 - e40
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/gulzar_shah/137/