>> These factors contribute
to experiential evidence.
This type of evidence
will be discussed further
in the experiential
evidence module.
>> What we have to do is find
ways to be able to really draw
on the brilliance of our
prevention practitioners
and draw on the brilliance
from their community and come
up with those ideas, 'cause
that's where we're going
to be able to make the changes.
In order to do that, we're
going to are to be able
to really find ways to bring
in all these different ideas
of understanding our
context and our --
you know, using our experience.
>> The framework for
thinking about evidence.
The framework includes
contributions from researchers
and practitioners to provide
a more comprehensive view
of evidence that is appropriate
and necessary for
decision-making.
To inform public
health decision-making,
the framework is composed
of three types of evidence
that complement one another.
Best available research
evidence.
Experiential evidence.
Contextual evidence.
[]
[ Pause ]
[] A youth survey across the
state revealed a high percentage
of youth in one local county
have either experienced sexual
violence or know
someone who has.
A workgroup was assembled
to address sexual
violence in that county.
The workgroup was tasked
with choosing an evidence based
sexual violence prevention
strategy to implement
in the county.
The technical assistance, or TA,
team for sexual violence
prevention
in the state was the first
stop for the workgroup.
The TA team shared the website
for the National Sexual
Violence Resource Center, NSVRC;
the California Coalition
Against Sexual Assault, CALCASA;
Prevent Connect; and Blueprints
for Violence Prevention
which includes reviews of the
research evidence compiled
by the Center for the Study
and Prevention of Violence
at the University of Colorado.
They also directed the workgroup
toward two potential strategies
to consider: One school-based
program that has been shown
to reduce sexual violence,
and one that focusing
on bystander behavior
in the community.
This aided the workgroup
in locating the best
available research.
The TA team also guided
them in finding resources
for gathering contextual
evidence such as tools
for conducting a
community needs assessment;
and potential sources
of local data
such as census tract information
and school, hospital,
and law enforcement data
on sexual violence risk
and protective factors
until the community.
The TA team also encouraged them
to document their own experience
and knowledge of the community
as well as the experience
and knowledge of
other stakeholders.
This experiential evidence could
provide an important perspective
for reviewing the research
and contextual evidence
and assessing the fit
between the various prevention
strategies and the
community context.
They shared some ways to make
that information explicit
and transparent as
they moved forward
with the decision-making
process.
Stages of the decision-making
process.
Gathering evidence.
To gather evidence, first,
seek out best available
research evidence;
find relevant evidence
registries
and systematic reviews or other
relevant research evidence
sources as available; collect
information on your setting
that is related to factors
important for the decision;
consult the expertise and
knowledge of stakeholders; then,
confirm that all information
used as evidence is replicable,
observable, credible,
and verifiable.
>> And so oftentimes it's
about, well, what already exists
that has shown some
evidence of being effective
with the population that
you care about, and then --
then it matters who are
these people who are trying
to put something together?
What are their values?
What are their strengths?
What is it that they're
trying to achieve?
>> Interpreting evidence.
First, review the
research evidence
and determine how rigorously the
research studies are designed,
how well the strategies
were implemented,
and whether the strategies have
been replicated and evaluated
across multiple settings
and populations.
This information will help
you determine the strength
of the research evidence
indicating that a program,
practice, or policy is
effectively preventing violence.
However, depending on
the question or strategy,
the available research
evidence may be weak.
Explore areas where the
research, experiences,
preferences, and values of
local stakeholders vary; then,
gauge the feasibility and
utility of strategies in light
of the location and population
effected by their decision.
>> That program really has to
match some of the key values
and structures and all
of that of the community
because an effective
program is not effective is
if it's not implemented
and if it's not taken
up by the participants
of the study.
So there does need
to be some discussion
with the community saying
this is the program.
Will this work in
our high risk group
or with this particular
culture in order
to make decisions about that.
>> Applying what you
learned from evidence.
Consider all three
types of evidence
to provide the best opportunity
to prevent violence
before it occurs.
In the application of evidence
stage, the collective sources
of evidence are considered,
prioritized, and transformed
through group deliberation
into an actionable decision;
use explicit inclusion
criteria for participants;
focus on carefully defined
problems; and document
where participant views differ.
Characteristics of the
decision-making process.
The goal of evidence-based
decision-making is
to bring a high standard
of research evidence
into the decision-making
process while taking
into account the contextual
and experiential factors
that influence decisions
for prevention.
Transparency.
The decision-making process
should be an authentic effort
to gather and examine
all relevant evidence.
It should not be used to
justify or promote decisions
that have already been made.
Inclusiveness and participation.
Those who will implement the
strategy, those will be effected
by that implementation, and
those making policy decisions
that will affect the strategy's
implementation should be
included in the decision-making
process.
Openness and explicitness.
At every level
of decision-making it should
be clear how evidence was
collected, what evidence
was collected,
and how that evidence
informed the final decision.
Skilled leadership
and facilitation.
Active guidance from those
in leadership positions during
the decision-making process is
important; so is objective
and skilled facilitation.
Both of these support
identifying a shared
understanding while allowing
for dissenting opinions.
They also motivate the group
to commit to a conclusion
that supports the common good.
Defined process.
Terms that are clearly
defined, clear mechanisms
for collecting evidence,
timelines, and other tools
to capture the process should
all contribute to transparency,
inclusiveness, and explicitness.
It is important to keep
in mind that attaining all
of these characteristics
represents a goal
for optimal outcomes but that
each decision-making scenario
will be unique, and the level
to which these characteristics
can be achieved will vary
from situation to situation.
Overview. Evidence-based
decision-making involves
gathering, interpreting,
and applying evidence.
Evidence includes the
best available research,
information on the circumstances
in which the program, practice,
or policy will be implemented,
and the insights from people
who bring subject matter
expertise, resources, training,
education, and practical
experience to the project.
All three types of evidence
are important for the success
of prevention programs,
practices, and policies.
Evidence-based decision-making
occurs
when the best available
research evidence is combined
with the contextual and
experiential evidence
from community data and
field-based expertise.
>> It's extremely important
to look at both what we know
from a research perspective
and what information we get
from the field and from
people in practice.
And it's extremely important
that there be visible
and active dialogue from
practitioners in the process
of evaluating and
considering programs.
>> Knowledge check.
Evidence-based decision-making.