摘要：Objectives. We examined the perceived importance of scientific resources for decision-making among local health department (LHD) practitioners in the United States. Methods. We used data from LHD practitioners (n = 849). Respondents ranked important decision-making resources, methods for learning about public health research, and academic journal use. We calculated descriptive statistics and used logistic regression to measure associations of individual and LHD characteristics with importance of scientific resources. Results. Systematic reviews of scientific literature (24.7%) were most frequently ranked as important among scientific resources, followed by scientific reports (15.9%), general literature review articles (6.5%), and 1 or a few scientific studies (4.8%). Graduate-level education (adjusted odds ratios [AORs] = 1.7–3.5), larger LHD size (AORs = 2.0–3.5), and leadership support (AOR = 1.6; 95% confidence interval = 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. Local health department (LHD) practitioners develop evidence-based programs and policies by means of a complex decision-making process. Often referred to as evidence-based decision-making (EBDM), this process involves making decisions on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, applying program planning and quality improvement frameworks, engaging the community in assessment and decision-making, and conducting sound evaluation. 1 To inform efforts aimed at boosting performance of public health agencies, there should be a clear understanding of decision-making patterns in LHDs, particularly those based on scientific information. Documenting and implementing improvements in EBDM is increasingly important as a foundation of public health services and systems research 2–4 and as part of accreditation programs such as the Public Health Accreditation Board Standards. 5 The Public Health Accreditation Board has directly included EBDM in its set of accreditation standards by recommending and incentivizing LHDs to “contribute to and apply the evidence base of public health.” 5 (p3) Understanding how to enhance EBDM among public health directors, managers of programs or divisions, program coordinators, and other public health staff has become relevant for LHDs seeking or wishing to maintain accreditation status. Tools such as the Community Guide–Public Health Accreditation Board Crosswalk 6 aim to increase the use of evidence-based approaches and support accreditation. The tool’s purpose is to show how implementing the evidence-based interventions in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (referred to hereinafter as the Community Guide ) can fulfill the various requirements of the Public Health Accreditation Board. 7 The use of scientific resources (e.g., systematic reviews, scientific reports, scientific articles) and capacity-building approaches may enhance EBDM in LHDs. 8–10 A growing abundance of accessible evidence-based resources are available, including the Community Guide . 11 However, few studies have documented the perceived importance and reported use of scientific resources that are part of the LHD decision-making process, and significant barriers exist. Enhancing access to resources, training, and leadership that fosters a supportive culture have been identified as a key component to overcoming barriers that prevent use of evidence-based resources. 1,8,12 Additionally, to improve the translation of science to practice, researchers need new knowledge on the most appropriate methods for communicating their research findings. 13
