Sanchita Sultana: How Evidence Alone Does Not Change Health Outcomes

From helping her grandmother understand a cancer diagnosis in Bangladesh to studying population health in the United States, the epidemiologist has built her work around a difficult question: what happens when strong scientific evidence never reaches the people who need it?

Years before Sanchita Sultana began working as an epidemiologist, she found herself translating a cancer diagnosis for her grandmother in a government hospital in a small town in Bangladesh. The medical professionals did not have the time or language to explain the cause of her grandmother’s disease in a way she could understand.

Sultana found herself between her grandmother’s fear and medical professionals who, in her experience, did not have the time or language to fully explain the diagnosis. The experience stayed with her because it exposed a gap in awareness, access, and communication that would later shape her professional work.

“I saw that having medical knowledge available was not enough,” Sultana says. “There was still a distance between the system and the person sitting in front of it. That experience stayed with me because it showed me how much awareness, access, and communication matter.”

Today, Sultana works across epidemiology, implementation science, and population health research. She studies health data, evaluates public health programs, and examines how scientific findings can become practical decisions in healthcare and community settings. Cancer screening is among the subjects she has addressed in her peer-reviewed research, along with other areas of population health.

The subjects may differ, but Sultana sees a common problem running through much of the work. Evidence can identify a health risk or support a particular course of action without guaranteeing that the information will reach the right people or influence what happens next.

“Earlier in my career, I believed that if the evidence was strong enough, better decisions would naturally follow,” she says. “Over time, I learned that evidence does not move by itself. People have to understand it, trust it, and be able to use it within the realities of their communities.”

That realization changed the way Sultana thinks about the role of an epidemiologist. Producing rigorous analysis remains essential, but she believes the responsibility extends beyond the research itself. Public health professionals also have to consider whether findings can be communicated clearly enough to guide decisions outside academic settings.

“Strong evidence is only part of the work,” Sultana says. “Public health also has to communicate that evidence clearly enough for people and communities to understand it.”

Her concern has become more urgent as the information environment changes. Sultana points to artificial intelligence as a force reshaping how health information is generated and shared, while also accelerating the spread of misinformation and malinformation. False or misleading claims can travel quickly, making it harder for communities to distinguish credible science from inaccurate information.

For public health professionals, that creates a challenge that cannot be solved by producing more evidence alone. Communities also need to be able to distinguish credible scientific information from inaccurate or misleading claims. That requires attention not only to what the evidence says, but also to how clearly it is communicated and whether people know which sources deserve their trust.

“People are receiving health information from many directions, and speed does not guarantee accuracy,” Sultana says. “Public health cannot assume that publishing the evidence means the public will automatically find it, understand it, or trust it.”

That makes trust a practical public health issue rather than an abstract one. Sultana has learned that lasting impact depends on more than technical expertise. It also requires clear communication, collaboration, and an understanding of the communities being served.

She encourages the next generation of public health professionals to develop strong epidemiologic and analytical methods while also learning how to explain science clearly and work across disciplines. In her view, those skills matter because even the strongest analysis has limited value when the people affected by the problem remain disconnected from the information.

“You can have a sophisticated analysis and still fail to create meaningful change if the people affected by the issue are disconnected from the process,” she says. “Public health ultimately serves people. The methods matter because they help us understand the problem, but we cannot lose sight of who is living with the consequences.”

Sultana’s own research has reinforced that lesson. She has authored peer-reviewed publications and has presented work at the 2025 annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. Her experience across applied public health practice and research has strengthened her belief that the usefulness of evidence depends partly on whether people can understand and act on it.

That perspective also shapes how she views public trust. Scientific knowledge can evolve quickly, but public understanding may not move at the same pace. Sultana sees that gap as especially important in an era when health information can spread rapidly across digital channels and inaccurate claims can compete directly with established evidence.

“Trust is not automatic just because the science is strong,” she says. “Public health has to earn that trust by communicating clearly, listening to communities, and making the evidence understandable enough to be useful.”

For Sultana, the lesson is both professional and personal. Years ago in Bangladesh, she saw what it felt like when important health information existed but did not fully reach the person who needed it. Her work since then has given her a broader view of the same problem across research, communication, and public health practice.

“I still think about that distance,” Sultana says. “Strong evidence gives us a foundation, but lasting impact also depends on whether people can understand it, trust it, and use it. Public health has to keep finding better ways to close that gap.”