ABSTRACT
It is generally believed that research evidence, if effectively transferred, could inform policy and practice decisions and subsequently improve health outcomes (1). Evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) involves the incorporation of the best available evidence from a systematically collected, appraised, and analyzed body of knowledge (2–4). Each step of the process requires unique skills and knowledge, which have been shown to be limited among public health professionals (5, 6). Furthermore, barriers such as time greatly reduce the extent to which decision makers engage in EIDM. The literature demonstrates that knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) strategies, which overcome time and limited capacity to identify, appraise, and synthesize evidence, hold promise for promoting EIDM (7–9). The ultimate goal of KTE activities is to facilitate the incorporation of research knowledge into the decision-making process and ultimately policies, practice, and eventually health outcomes. The term implies that effective strategies are all that are needed to achieve this end. It all appears so rational, logical, and, well, simple. So, why has it proved so challenging to achieve EIDM among public health organizations and decision makers? Furthermore, would we know if we had achieved it?
