Journal of Health Monitoring Evidence-based Public Health for Public Health Action – Proceedings of an international workshop at the RKI EDITORIAL Journal of Health Monitoring · 2020 5(S3) DOI 10.25646/6499 Providing actionable evidence in Public Health – The 2018 Robert Koch Institute, Berlin international workshop on evidence-based public health at the Christa Scheidt-Nave 1, Angela Fehr 2, Sebastian Haller 3, Giselle Sarganas 1, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin Henriette Steppuhn 1, Julia Truthmann 4, Thomas Harder 3 A one-day international workshop entitled ‘Evidence- Table 2 (EVALUATION) – Which methods, skills, and 1 Robert Koch Institute, Berlin based Public Health for Public Health Action’ took place data does the RKI as a national public health institute need Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring 2 Robert Koch Institute, Berlin at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in Berlin on Decem- to perform evaluations of public health interventions? Centre for International Health Protection ber 14, 2018. The workshop was organised by an inter- Table 3 (DISSEMINATION) – How can the RKI as a 3 Robert Koch Institute, Berlin disciplinary RKI public health research team and aimed national public health institute facilitate dissemination of Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology 4 Formerly Robert Koch Institute, Berlin to (1) provide insight into current concepts and method- results among public health stakeholders, and what could Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring ological challenges in evidence-based public health be important steps to enhance that (e.g. Cochrane Public (EBPH), and (2) identify next steps in enhancing collab- Health Research network, institutional repositories)? Corresponding author Dr Christa Scheidt-Nave orations on EBPH research and practice within the RKI The workshop was open to RKI staff from all units. A Robert Koch Institute and with external partners at the national and interna- total of 66 persons participated including invited speakers. Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring General-Pape-Straße 62–66 tional level. The workshop program is available on the publication server 12101 Berlin, Germany The workshop consisted of two parts. The first part com- of the RKI. E-mail: [email protected] prised a series of invited talks given by experts in the field Submitted: 15.01.2020 of EBPH from Germany and the United Kingdom (UK). The Part 1: Invited talks Accepted: 20.01.2020 second interactive part was devoted to group discussions. In their introductory presentations Mark Petticrew, Published: 04.06.2020 Applying the world café method, participants were asked Department of Social and Environmental Health Conflicts of interest to discuss approaches to strengthen EBPH at the RKI. Research at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical The authors declared no conflicts of interest. There was time for group discussions at three tables in two Medicine, and Eva A. Rehfuess, Institute for Medical Funding twenty minute rounds. Inspired by the public health action Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology at The workshop Evidence-based Public Health for Public cycle three key questions were assigned to the table hosts the Petten kofer School of Public Health, Ludwig Maxi- Health Action was funded by the Robert Koch Institute. in order to stimulate and guide discussions: milian University of Munich, outlined current concepts and methodological challenges in EBPH. In particular, Table 1 (ASSESSMENT) – Which tools/methods for sys- both speakers highlighted the fact that public health This work is licensed under a tematic evidence assessment does the RKI as a national interventions always imply changes in complex systems. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 public health institute need to identify and prioritize public With a special focus on public health interventions tar- International License. health topics? geting the prevention of non-communicable diseases, Journal of Health Monitoring 2020 5(S3) 3 Journal of Health Monitoring Evidence-based Public Health for Public Health Action – Proceedings of an international workshop at the RKI EDITORIAL Marc Petticrew emphasized the need to study not only Till Bärnighausen, Heidelberg Institute of Global Health what is easy to measure, e.g. individual health behaviour, (HIGH), University of Heidelberg, introduced innovative but also the upstream causes. These include personal, methods in population-based implementation and evalu- societal and economic context factors, such as health per- ation research including regression-discontinuity and ceptions or market forces. Understanding the complex fixed-effect models. He demonstrated that quasi-experi- determinants of non-communicable diseases is essential mental study designs play a key role in public health inter- to provide evidence for the implementation and evalua- vention research, in particular when conduct of RCTs is tion of effective public health interventions across very precluded for ethical and methodological reasons. If care- different contexts. Eva A. Rehfuess illustrated the impor- fully designed and appropriately applied to a specific tance of contextual factors by providing examples of inter- research question, quasi-experimental methods minimize ventions that proved to be beneficial in one context, but risk of bias and hence provide high level evidence regard- harmful in another. Thus, deriving evidence from rand- ing the effectiveness of public health measures. omized controlled trials (RCTs) may result in seriously Stefan Lhachimi, Institute for Public Health and Nurs- misleading results if contextual factors are not taken into ing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, discussed some account. Logic models can be used as a graphical tool for of the challenges specific to the conduct of systematic mapping contextual factors relevant to the design and reviews and meta-analyses on public health interventions. evaluation of public health interventions. Several concep- He emphasized the need for improving the quality of the tual frameworks are available to guide the process from evidence basis at the level of primary studies, in particular evidence synthesis to decision-making in public health. with regard to reducing risk of bias, standardizing defini- Kay Nolan, Centre for Guidelines at the National Insti- tions for outcomes and interventions, and considering that tute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in Manchester/ study results may greatly vary according to the specific UK, shared her expertise in EBPH guideline development. study contexts. He also discussed ongoing work to improve She illustrated two of the NICE core principles. First, given methods in synthesizing the evidence on public health the complexity of public health problems, it is inevitable to intervention, in order to ensure timely and actionable infor- systematically search for the best available evidence. This mation for health policy planning and implementation. requires considering information across the whole spec- Manfred Wildner, Department of Health in the Bavarian trum of evidence levels. Secondly, identifying evidence gaps Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleißheim, and and areas of uncertainty is a central part of NICE EBPH Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Ludwig Maximilian guideline recommendations. This will help to guide University of Munich, highlighted the need for a sustain- research priority setting, in order to continuously improve able translation network in EBPH. Based on his longstand- the evidence base. These principles have the potential to ing experience at the interface of public health policy, guide the next steps to strengthen EBPH at the RKI. research and practice, he emphasized that an ongoing, Journal of Health Monitoring 2020 5(S3) 4 Journal of Health Monitoring Evidence-based Public Health for Public Health Action – Proceedings of an international workshop at the RKI EDITORIAL structured and open discourse involving policy, research Table 1 (ASESSMENT) – Which tools/methods for sys- and practice should be guided by the shared responsibility tematic evidence assessment does the RKI as a national to provide the best available evidence to health policy mak- public health institute need to identify and prioritize public ing, to support implementation and evaluation research, health topics? and to inform the public. In addition to rating evidence in public health, future Thomas Harder, Department of Infectious Disease Epi- work should focus on health gap analyses and priority set- demiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, illustrated two ting, in order to generate the evidence that is presently examples of EBPH research and practice at the RKI. The most needed and actionable. This will also help to make RKI took the lead in the PRECEPT project (Project on a efficient use of time and personnel resources. Systematic Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health). In this approaches to health gap analyses including quantitative project, an international and multidisciplinary research as well as qualitative methods, such as discourse analysis team developed and successfully implemented a concep- may be necessary to achieve this goal. tual framework for rating evidence in public health with Table 2 (EVALUATION) – Which methods, skills, and focus on the prevention and control of communicable dis- data does the RKI as a national public health institute need eases. The project was funded by the European Center for to perform evaluations of public health interventions?