{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02826267664172901, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.764044943820225, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary: Generating rigorous evidence for public health: the need for new thinking to improve research and practice.

This commentary describes the concept of evidence-based public health, including the limitations of evidence. Increased attention to evidence may have numerous benefits for public health practice, including access to higher-quality information on what works, a higher likelihood of successful programs and policies being implemented, greater workforce productivity, and more efficient use of resources. To broaden thinking on the sources and scope of evidence, the three reviews in this symposium seek to (a) compare and contrast several evaluation designs that are alternatives to the randomized controlled trial; (b) describe two research approaches that are useful in addressing complex, multilevel public health issues (i.e., mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews); and (c) provide an overview of the value and approaches for generating practice-based evidence. These reviews highlight the complexity and interrelatedness of public health challenges, limitations of researcher-driven, quantitative approaches, and the need to broaden our current concepts of evidence.