Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 19–23 | Cite as

The Use of Population Health and Health Promotion Research by Health Regions in Canada

  • Elan C. PaluckEmail author
  • Deanna L. Williamson
  • C. Dawne Milligan
  • C. James FrankishEmail author


This study examined the use of population health and health promotion (PH&HP) research by health regions in Canada. An 11-item survey was faxed to 137 (of 140) health regions. Eighty-three completed questionnaires were returned (60.8%). Results indicate that while research, in general, plays more than a moderate role in the majority of participating health regions, PH&HP research is not used frequently. The most frequent uses of PH&HP research include the development of health goals and objectives, the development of programs and services, and resource allocation. Health regions most frequently obtain PH&HP research from their own staff and from government departments. University-based researchers are not a commonly used source. This study provides a descriptive overview of health regions’ engagement in evidence-based decision making related to PH&HP issues, and points to a number of strategies that both health regions and researchers can employ to enhance the use of PH&HP research by health regions.


Pour examiner l’utilisation des études en santé de la population et en promotion de la santé (SP&PS), nous avons télécopié un sondage portant sur 11 éléments à 137 des 140 régions sanitaires du Canada. Quatrevingt-trois régions ont répondu (60,8 %). Les résultats indiquent que même si la recherche en général joue plus qu’un rôle modéré dans la majorité des régions sanitaires participantes, les études en SP&PS ne sont pas utilisées fréquemment. Elles servent le plus souvent à la définition des priorités et objectifs de santé, à l’élaboration des programmes et services et à l’affectation des ressources. Les régions sanitaires obtiennent en général leurs études en SP&PS de leur propre personnel et des ministères; elles font rarement appel aux chercheurs universitaires. Notre étude donne un aperçu de la mesure dans laquelle les régions sanitaires prennent des décisions fondées sur des preuves en matière de SP&PS et désigne un certain nombre de stratégies que les régions sanitaires autant que les chercheurs peuvent employer pour favoriser l’utilisation des études en SP&PS.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Labonte R, Jackson S, Chirrey S. Population health and health system restructuring: Has our knowledge of social and environmental determinants of health made a difference? 1–113. Health Canada, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dohler M. Policy networks, opportunity structures and neo-conservative reform strategies in health policy. In: Marin B, Mayntz R (Eds.), Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morfitt G. Report of the Auditor General on Regionalization, Accountability and Governance. Victoria: Auditor General’s Office, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frankish CJ, Ratner PA, Green LW, et al. National Study of Provincial Health Goals in Canada: Interim Project Report to Health Canada. Vancouver: Institute of Health Promotion Research, University of British Columbia, 1994a.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lomas J, Sisk J, Stocking B. From evidence to practice in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Milbank Quarterly 1993;71(3):405–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lomas J. Improving Research Dissemination and Uptake in the Health Sector: Beyond the Sound of One Hand Clapping. Hamilton, Ontario. McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. C97-1:1–45, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tanenbaum S. “Medical effectiveness” in Canadian and US health policy: The comparative politics of inferential ambiguity. Health Services Research 1996;31(5):517–32.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirdes J, Carpenter I. Health outcomes among the frail elderly in communities and institutions: Use of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) to create effective linkages between research and policy. Can J Aging 1997;16(suppl):S53–S69.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crosswaite C, Curtice L. Disseminating research results–the challenge of bridging the gap between health research and health action. Health Prom Int 1994;9(4):289–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elliot H, Harries U, Popay J, Higgins A. Evidence-based policy making in the NHS: A study of the interface between research and the purchasing process. Manchester, England: Public Health Research and Resource Centre, 1996;1:1–48.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGinnis J. Prevention research and its interface with policy. Prev Med 1994;23:618–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frankish CJ, Kwan B, Ratner PA, Wharf Higgins J. Community Participation in Health-System Decision Making: Survey 3 in a Series of Surveys of Health Authorities in British Columbia (February - April 1999). Vancouver: Institute of Health Promotion Research, University of British Columbia, 1994b.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Labonte R. Optimal health care system [letter; comment]. Can J Public Health 1999;90(1):65–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pratt M, McDonald S, Libbey P, et al. Local health departments in Washington use Apex to assess capacity. Public Health Rep 1996;111(1):87–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roos N. How psychiatric epidemiology can become more useful to health policy and administration. A further response to Alec Leighton’s letter. Anonymous. CAPE News and Views 1998;1–2.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Currie C, Watson J. Translating research findings into health promotion action: Lessons from the HBSC Study. Edinburgh, Scotland: Health Education Board for Scotland, 1998;1–22.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McWilliam C. Using participatory research process to make a difference in policy on ageing. Can J Aging 1997;16(suppl):70–89.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McIntyre L. The role of the researcher cum health policy advocate. J Can Dietetic Assoc 1996;57(1):35–38.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roos N. From research to policy: What have we learned from designing the Population Health Information System? Medical Care 1995;22(12 suppl):DS132–DS145.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doherty J, Rispel L. From conflict to cohesion: Involving stakeholders in policy research. Evaluation and Program Planning 1995;18(4):409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mutter J. Using research results as a health promotion strategy: A five-year case study in Canada. Health Promotion 1989;3(4):393–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wallack L, Dorfman L, Hernagan D, Themba M. Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention. Newbury Park: Sage, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amick BC, Levine S, Tarlov AR, Chapman Walsh D (Eds.). Society and Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Evans RG, Barer ML, Marmor TR (Eds.). Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Federal, Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health. Strategies of Public Health: Investing in the Health of Canadians. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marmot M, Wilkinson RG (Eds.). Social Determinants of Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilkinson R. Unhealthy Societies. London: Routledge, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UBC Institute of Health Promotion ResearchVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Human EcologyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations