Information sur l’événement

« Retour au calendrier

Evidence-Informed Decision Making Checklist from Health EvidenceTM

Quand January 27, 2016 1:00pm - January 27, 2016 2:30pm
Type d’événement Webinar
Propriétaire National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT)
URL https://health-evidence.webex.com/health-evidence/onstage/g.php?MTID=e6a2ca8c3cd2d5f1ca445310ad58d9a47
Lieu
Facilitateurs Donna Ciliska, RN, PhD, Senior Knowledge Translation Advisor National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools McMaster University
Langue Anglais

This event will be presented in English. An audio recording will be available following the event. The presentation slides will be posted online in English and French following the event. French slides are available in advance of this event upon request; please email us at nccmt@mcmaster.ca

Looking for a template to help you document the process of evidence informed decision making?  

What is Evidence Informed Decision Making?  

Within the context of public health, evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) is the process of finding, distilling and disseminating the best available evidence from research, context and experience, and using that evidence to inform and improve public health practice and policy. It involves assessing the quality of the research evidence you find, applying the best available evidence to your question, problem or issue, and evaluating its impact on practice.

How can the Evidence-Informed Decision Making Checklist help you?
Developed by Health EvidenceTM, the Evidence-Informed Decision Making Checklist helps public health professionals succinctly document how you and/or your team worked through the EIDM process so you can share that information with senior management. Having a Checklist on file can help your organization implement the results of your evidence.

The fillable checklist includes such critical elements as:

  • Was a clear answerable search question developed?
  • Was a comprehensive search strategy employed to find the best available evidence to address this question?
  • Was quality assessment conducted on relevant evidence?
  • What were the results of the review of the evidence?