| ||Dyads that speak to partnerships between policy makers, decision makers and researchers.
9:15 - 10:00 am
Changing the Narrative on Investment in Population and Public Health Research
| ||Steven Hoffman, Scientific Director, Institute of Population and Public Health (Canada)|
10:00 - 10:30 am
Break & Poster Viewing
10:30 am - 12:30 pm
How Healthy is Public Health Policy?
| ||What is healthy public policy both in terms of how it is developed and in the end result? This session will discuss the constraints on evidence-informed policy making for elected officials, bureaucrats, and service delivery organizations. Providing the right evidence, incenting the right decisions, managing conflicting Interests, and reaching consensus.
| ||Opening Commentary:|
- Trevor Hancock, Senior Scholar, School of Public Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria (Canada)
- Peter Kelly, Director, Fuse Centre; Director of Public Health, England North East; Board Chair, Fuse Advisory Board (United Kindom)
- Mark Tyndall, Executive Medical Director, BC Centre for Disease Control; Professor of Medicine, University of British Columbia (Canada)
- Nadav Davidovitch, Director, School of Public Health, Ben Gurion University (Israel)
12:30 - 2:00 pm
Lunch & Final Keynote: If We Want More Evidence-Based Practice or Policy, We Need More Practice-based Evidence
| ||Lawrence Green, University of California, San Francisco (USA)|
As the evidence-based medicine movement migrated from Archie Cochrane in the UK to Canada via his protégé, David Sackett, and to the US via the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination to the US Preventive Services Task Force, it took on increasingly population health questions of efficacy, cost-effectiveness and efficiency. The Cochran Collaboration internationally, Maureen Dobbins at Health Evidence Canada, and the US CDC's Community Preventive Services Task Force eventually stretched the criteria of effectiveness to include considerations of external validity to complement the exclusive emphasis on internal validity, leading to an increased emphasis on whether the evidence in evidence-based practices were sufficiently applicable to the settings, circumstances and varied populations in which the practices from highly controlled and often randomized trials would be applied. Most of this trajectory of evidence-based practice was independent of an earlier academic (mostly sociological and political science) field of translation of policy to practice, The problem in both came to be viewed as a misalignment between the source of the evidence or the policy and the places where it was expected to be applied. This review of these historical threads brings us to the conclusion of this conference with questions and suggestions of how to improve the fit among policy, research evidence and practice, and how can policy improve on this fit without imposing impossible requirements and unrealistic criteria of effectiveness on the varied settings in which evidence and policy would be applied.