Understanding the Role of Communities of Practice in Evidence-Informed Decision Making in Public Health

Abstract

In this article we report on qualitative findings that describe public health practitioners' practice-based definitions of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) and communities of practice (CoP), and how CoP could be a mechanism to enhance their capacity to practice EIDM. Our findings emerged from a qualitative descriptive analysis of group discussions and participant concept maps from two consensus-building workshops that were conducted with public health practitioners (N = 90) in two provinces in eastern Canada. Participants recognized the importance of EIDM and the significance of integrating explicit and tacit evidence in the EIDM process, which was enhanced by CoP. Tacit knowledge, particularly from peers and personal experience, was the preferred source of knowledge, with informal peer interactions being the favored form of CoP to support EIDM. CoP helped practitioners build relationships and community capacity, share and create knowledge, and build professional confidence and critical inquiry. Participants described individual and organizational attributes that were needed to enable CoP and EIDM.

Comparing views about evidence in Ontario public health units: a qualitative descriptive study

“…Moreover, participants described that their choice of evidence is context-dependent as well as program-dependent. This aligns with a number of studies that have shown that an integration of knowledge is often carried out within the public health context and that this integration can vary depending on the stage of program planning (Higgins et al, 2011;Kothari et al, 2012;Meagher-Stewart et al, 2012;Yousefi-Nooraei et al, 2014). In terms of the differences between managers and frontline staff, the types of evidence used by frontline staff were based on practice evidence (e.g., practice evidence from other jurisdictions, past practice), whereas managers focused more on research-based documents.…”

“…Within the two main types of evidence are several sub-types, indicating the diversity and complexity of the concept of evidence (Glasgow and Emmons, 2007;Kothari et al, 2015). A number of studies have shown that an integration of tacit and explicit knowledge is often carried out within the public health context (Higgins et al, 2011;Kothari et al, 2012;Meagher-Stewart et al, 2012;YousefiNooraei et al, 2014), suggesting that studies focused on understanding the utilization of evidence need to employ a broad definition of evidence that moves beyond just research findings.…”

Le Web 2.0 pour soutenir le réseautage en santé mentale au Québec

“…Synthèse des avantages, obstacles et facilitateurs à la participation aux activités de débats-blogue (Annabi et McCann, 2013 ;Bertone et al, 2013 ;Meagher-Stewart et al, 2012 ;Pharo et al, 2014 Figures 2 et 4).…”

“…De surcroît, il ne faut pas négliger la richesse des échanges des connaissances pratiques non basées sur les preuves scientifiques (habiletés, trucs de métier, vécu expérientiel, etc.) entre les différents participants et l'importance dans la prise de décision éclairée d'une intégration des connaissances tacites et explicites (Meagher-Stewart et al, 2012). Les nouveaux espaces virtuels offrent un cadre idéal aux participants -aux compétences et aux expertises diverses -pour discuter de cas entourant des problématiques complexes et échanger sur les défis liés à leur contexte et leur réalité locale (Diaz-Chao et al, 2014 ;Pharo et al, 2014).…”

Exploring Arts‐Based Knowledge Translation: Sharing Research Findings Through Performing the Patterns, Rehearsing the Results, Staging the Synthesis

“…McWilliam, Kothari, Ward‐Griffin, Forbes, and Leipert () found that relationships with researchers and colleagues aided health practitioners to synthesize research evidence with professional tacit knowledge, which enhanced integration of research‐based knowledge into practice. Furthermore, practitioner tacit knowledge and social networks are increasingly noted as influencing how research evidence is integrated into practice (Kothari et al., ; Meagher‐Stewart, Solberg, Warner, MacDonald, McPherson, & Seaman, ) and findings from an integrative review suggest that nurses most often used informal and interactive sources of information to guide patient care (Spenceley, O'Leary, Chizawsky, Ross, & Estabrooks, ). This evidence of how social processes influence knowledge and knowing within clinical practice supports the significance for KT initiatives informed by a social constructivist standpoint.…”