Knowledge translation to fitness trainers: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study investigates approaches for translating evidence-based knowledge for use by fitness trainers. Specific questions were: Where do fitness trainers get their evidence-based information? What types of interventions are effective for translating evidence-based knowledge for use by fitness trainers? What are the barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence-based information by fitness trainers in their practice?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We describe a systematic review of studies about knowledge translation interventions targeting fitness trainers. Fitness trainers were defined as individuals who provide exercise program design and supervision services to the public. Nurses, physicians, physiotherapists, school teachers, athletic trainers, and sport team strength coaches were excluded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 634 citations, two studies were eligible for inclusion: a survey of 325 registered health fitness professionals (66% response rate) and a qualitative study of 10 fitness instructors. Both studies identified that fitness trainers obtain information from textbooks, networking with colleagues, scientific journals, seminars, and mass media. Fitness trainers holding higher levels of education are reported to use evidence-based information sources such as scientific journals compared to those with lower education levels, who were reported to use mass media sources. The studies identified did not evaluate interventions to translate evidence-based knowledge for fitness trainers and did not explore factors influencing uptake of evidence in their practice.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Little is known about how fitness trainers obtain and incorporate new evidence-based knowledge into their practice. Further exploration and specific research is needed to better understand how emerging health-fitness evidence can be translated to maximize its use by fitness trainers providing services to the general public.</p

Missing and accounted for: gaps and areas of wealth in the public health review literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High-quality review evidence is useful for informing and influencing public health policy and practice decisions. However, certain topic areas lack representation in terms of the quantity and quality of review literature available. The objectives of this paper are to identify the quantity, as well as quality, of review-level evidence available on the effectiveness of public health interventions for public health decision makers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Searches conducted on <url>http://www.health-evidence.ca</url> produced an inventory of public health review literature in 21 topic areas. Gaps and areas of wealth in the review literature, as well as the proportion of reviews rated methodologically strong, moderate, or weak were identified. The top 10 topic areas of interest for registered users and visitors of <url>http://www.health-evidence.ca</url> were extracted from user profile data and Google Analytics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Registered users' top three interests included: 1) healthy communities, 2) chronic diseases, and 3) nutrition. The top three preferences for visitors included: 1) chronic diseases, 2) physical activity, and 3) addiction/substance use. All of the topic areas with many (301+) available reviews were of interest to registered users and/or visitors (mental health, physical activity, addiction/substance use, adolescent health, child health, nutrition, adult health, and chronic diseases). Conversely, the majority of registered users and/or visitors did not have preference for topic areas with few (≤ 150) available reviews (food safety and inspection, dental health, environmental health) with the exception of social determinants of health and healthy communities. Across registered users' and visitors' topic areas of preference, 80.2% of the reviews were of well-done methodological quality, with 43.5% of reviews having a strong quality rating and 36.7% a moderate review quality rating.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In topic areas in which many reviews are available, higher level syntheses are needed to guide policy and practice. For other topic areas with few reviews, it is necessary to determine whether primary study evidence exists, or is needed, so that reviews can be conducted in the future. Considering that less than half of the reviews available on <url>http://www.health-evidence.ca</url> are of strong methodological quality, the quality of the review-level evidence needs to improve across the range of public health topic areas.</p

A knowledge management tool for public health: health-evidence.ca

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The ultimate goal of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) activities is to facilitate incorporation of research knowledge into program and policy development decision making. Evidence-informed decision making involves translation of the best available evidence from a systematically collected, appraised, and analyzed body of knowledge. Knowledge management (KM) is emerging as a key factor contributing to the realization of evidence-informed public health decision making. The goal of health-evidence.ca is to promote evidence-informed public health decision making through facilitation of decision maker access to, retrieval, and use of the best available synthesized research evidence evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic reviews that populate health evidence.ca are identified through an extensive search (1985-present) of 7 electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, BIOSIS, and SportDiscus; handsearching of over 20 journals; and reference list searches of all relevant reviews. Reviews are assessed for relevance and quality by two independent reviewers. Commonly-used public health terms are used to assign key words to each review, and project staff members compose short summaries highlighting results and implications for policy and practice.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As of June 2010, there are 1913 reviews in the health-evidence.ca registry in 21 public health and health promotion topic areas. Of these, 78% have been assessed as being of strong or moderate methodological quality. Health-evidence.ca receives approximately 35,000 visits per year, 20,596 of which are unique visitors, representing approximately 100 visits per day. Just under half of all visitors return to the site, with the average user spending six minutes and visiting seven pages per visit. Public health nurses, program managers, health promotion workers, researchers, and program coordinators are among the largest groups of registered users, followed by librarians, dieticians, medical officers of health, and nutritionists. The majority of users (67%) access the website from direct traffic (e.g., have the health-evidence.ca webpage bookmarked, or type it directly into their browser).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Consistent use of health-evidence.ca and particularly the searching for reviews that correspond with current public health priorities illustrates that health-evidence.ca may be playing an important role in achieving evidence-informed public health decision making.</p