Skip to main content

Table 3 Five-year comparison of state health department staff self-rated a EBDM competency importance, availability, and calculated gaps

From: Training needs and supports for evidence-based decision making among the public health workforce in the United States

 

2008 State health department staff (n =441) b

2013 State health department staff (n =904) b

  

Competency for evidence-based decision making

Mean (95% CI)

Mean (95% CI)

p c

d d

Economic evaluation: Understand how to use economic data in the decision making process.

  

Importance

8.8 (8.7-9.0)

9.7 (9.6-9.8)

<.001

0.52

Availability

4.7 (4.5-4.9)

5.6 (5.5-5.8)

<.001

0.36

Gap

4.2 (3.9-4.4)

4.0 (3.8-4.2)

.34

-0.05

Communicating research to policymakers: Understand the importance of effectively communicating with policymakers about public health issues.

  

Importance

9.2 (9.1-9.3)

10.1 (10.0-10.2)

<.001

0.70

Availability

5.4 (5.2-5.6)

7.0 (6.8-7.2)

<.001

0.63

Gap

3.8 (3.5-4.0)

3.1 (2.9-3.3)

<.001

-0.25

Adapting Interventions: Understand how to modify programs and policies for different communities and settings.

  

Importance

9.2 (9.1-9.3)

9.9 (9.8-10.0)

<.001

0.60

Availability

6.3 (6.0-6.5)

7.2 (7.0-7.3)

<.001

0.40

Gap

2.9 (2.7-3.1)

2.8 (2.6-3.0)

.37

-0.05

Evaluation designs: Understand the different designs that are useful in program or policy evaluation.

  

Importance

8.2 (8.0-8.3)

9.7 (9.6-9.8)

<.001

0.96

Availability

5.6 (5.4-5.8)

7.4 (7.2-7.5)

<.001

0.72

Gap

2.5 (2.3-2.7)

2.3 (2.2-2.5)

.22

-0.07

Prioritization: Understand how to prioritize program and policy options

   

Importance

8.9 (8.7-9.0)

9.9 (9.8-10.0)

<.001

0.73

Availability

6.7 (6.5-6.8)

7.6 (7.5-7.8)

<.001

0.45

Gap

2.2 (2.1-2.4)

2.3 (2.1-2.4)

.79

0.02

Qualitative evaluation: Understand the value of qualitative evaluation approaches (e.g. focus groups, key informant interviews) including the steps involved in conducting qualitative evaluations.

  

Importance

8.5 (8.3-8.6)

9.5 (9.4-9.6)

<.001

0.68

Availability

6.1 (5.9-6.3)

7.4 (7.2-7.6)

<.001

0.55

Gap

2.4 (2.1-2.6)

2.1 (2.0-2.3)

.11

-0.10

Quantitative evaluation: Understand the uses of quantitative evaluation approaches (e.g. surveillance and/or surveys).

  

Importance

8.6 (8.5-8.8)

9.9 (9.8-10.0)

<.001

0.83

Availability

6.5 (6.3-6.7)

8.3 (8.1-8.4)

<.001

0.76

Gap

2.2 (1.9-2.4)

1.6 (1.4-1.8)

<.001

-0.23

Action planning: Understand the importance of developing an action plan for how to achieve goals and objectives.

  

Importance

9.2 (9.0-9.3)

10.2 (10.1-10.2)

<.001

0.82

Availability

7.4 (7.2-7.6)

8.9 (8.8-9.0)

<.001

0.73

Gap

1.8 (1.6-2.0)

1.3 (1.1-1.4)

<.001

-0.25

Overall average: All EBDM competencies.

    

Importance

8.8 (8.7-8.9)

9.8 (9.8-9.9)

<.001

1.00

Availability

6.1 (5.9-6.2)

7.4 (7.3-7.5)

<.001

0.78

Gap

2.8 (2.6-3.0)

2.5 (2.3-2.6)

<.01

-0.19

  1. Abbreviations: EBDM evidence-based decision making, CI confidence interval.
  2. aParticipants were asked to rate the “importance of each of the skills to you” then rate “how available each skill is to you when you need it” both on an 11 point Likert scale (0 = not important/available; 10 = very important/available). Gaps were calculated by subtracting the Likert score rating for availability from rated importance.
  3. bNumber represents the total number of participants in each survey; number of participants that responded to each competency varied slightly and calculations are for valid non-missing cases.
  4. cP value for independent samples t test of mean differences in importance, availability, and gap scores between the 2008 and 2013 state health department participants.
  5. dCohen’s d calculated as d =2013 mean score minus the 2008 mean score and then divided by 2013 and 2008’s pooled standard deviation expressed as d = M1 - M2 / σ pooled. The direction (positive or negative) of d value is based on the input of 2013 mean scores first in the equation. Cohen suggests the following effect ranges: small 0.2; medium 0.5; and large 0.8.
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us