Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Data Sources
Results
Literature Review
Original Data
Discussion
Recommendations for the Ahrq Epc Program
References
All Topics
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Informatics

A Framework for Conceptualizing Evidence Needs of Health Systems

Profile image of Christine ChangChristine Chang

2017

https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCWHITEPAPER3
visibility

…

description

43 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

This report is based on research conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Centers' Methods Workgroup. The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

Related papers

Number 3 Article 2 Part of the Community Health and Preventive Medicine Commons, Health Services Administration Commons, and the Health Services Research Commons Brownson RC. Developing a Tool to Assess Administrative Evidence-Based Practices in Local Health Departments
Peg Allen

2014

There is need for assessing the practices undertaken by local health departments in order to improve the implementation of evidence-based actions. This paper describes the development and testing of a survey instrument for assessing Administrative Evidence-Based Practices (A-EBPs) in Local Health Departments. A-EBPs identified through a review of the literature were used to develop a survey composed of nine sections and tested in a sample of local health department practitioners. The resulting tool showed adequate test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Practitioners and researchers may apply this tool in practice-based and evaluation research.

View PDFchevron_right
A multi-institutional study of the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based practice
Ai Maemunah

Method: Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires. A stratified random sample (n = 100) of registered nurses participated; 5-point Likert-like scales were used to examine nurses' perceptions of barriers and facilitators of evidencebased practice. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic characteristics and to compare responses of nurses. Results: Participants were predominantly female (98.4%), in the 25 to <35 years age group (45.9%). Of nurses surveyed, 72.1% had never tried to implement evidence-based practice previously. The greatest barriers identified were as follows: "Inadequate resources for implementing research findings" (85.2%; n = 52) and "Inadequate training in research methods" (83.6%; n = 51). The top facilitators identified were as follows: "Training in research methods" (88.5%; n = 54) and "Organisational policies and protocols that are evidence-based" (86.9%; n = 53). Conclusions: Nurses generally expressed that they required additional training in research and evidence-based practice concepts. Although some nurses had a desire to implement evidence-based practice to provide quality care and improve patient outcomes, many expressed that they lacked the required resources. The study draws attention to the need for prioritisation of evidence-based practice both at institutional and governmental levels.

View PDFchevron_right
Using Evidence to Meet Population Healthcare Needs: Successes and Challenges
Gail Murphy

HealthcarePapers, 2013

In order to respond effectively to the health needs of Canadians, healthcare planners must directly consider these needs when planning and delivering services. However, Canada's various healthcare systems have traditionally been organized based on historical levels of service provision as opposed to population health needs. A number of innovations in care delivery redesign in Canada have already been developed as part of efforts to foster a more effective and sustainable healthcare system. This paper presents two of these as case studies illustrating some of the main challenges in trying to identify and address healthcare needs, as well as some potential solutions to those challenges.

View PDFchevron_right
Evidence-based practice is not synonymous with delivery of uniform health care
Ben Djulbegovic

JAMA, 2014

Despite spending close to 18% (more than $ 2.7 trillion) of its gross domestic product on health care, 1 it has been well documented that patients in the United States often do not receive high-quality care. It has been estimated that more than 30% of US health care is inappropriate or wasteful, 2 that more than 70,000 deaths occurs annually as a result of medical errors, 3 and that there is 3-to 20-fold variation in delivery of the same health care across the country. 4 At the same time, only 55% of needed health services are delivered. 5,6 There are two fundamental reasons for the suboptimal care in the current US health care systems. First, there is a lack of high-quality evidence related to the (comparative) effects of most health care interventions and a failure to administer those interventions for which there is high-quality evidential support of their beneficial effects. Evidence, however, is necessary but not sufficient for decision making. 7,8 The second reason relates to suboptimal decision making, often affected by the context and system factors (such as time pressure, socioeconomic and cultural issues, financial conflict of interest, and so on). 8 It is estimated that 80% of all health care expenditures are affected by physicians' decisions 9 and that poor decisions represent the leading cause of death. 10 Based on these considerations, it would appear that an increase in the of application and improvement of evidence-based decision making should correct at least some deficiencies in the way we deliver health care. Indeed, it is estimated that one third of the leading causes of deaths can be prevented and one third of health care spending can be saved if we were to adhere to evidence-based guidelines. 11 Calls to increase the use of evidence-based interventions have been periodically issued over the last two decades 12,13 with little success. One way to reinvigorate these discussions is to provide a common scientific framework and point to the key factors that underpin delivery and measurements of health care.

View PDFchevron_right
Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Publicly-Funded Clinics
Gregory Aarons

2005

View PDFchevron_right
A Model for Change to Evidence‐Based Practice
Ashraf Kamel

Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 1999

Purpose: To describe a model that guides nurses and other healthcare professionals through a systematic process for the change to evidence-based practice. The tremendous increases in clinical research and accessibility to research findings have prepared the way for the paradigm shift from traditional and intuition-driven practice to evidence-based practice. Although several models have emerged to guide practitioners in research utilization, practitioners continue to have difficulty synthesizing empirical and contextual evidence and integrating evidence-based changes into practice.

View PDFchevron_right
EVIDENCE BASED HEALTH CARE NEWSLETTER AN ANNUAL PUBLICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY & BIOSTATISTICS, MCMASTER UNIVERSITY
John De Simone

THE EVIDENCE GAME John De Simone I dare to propose an educational strategy, using a simple game-technique, to demonstrate the relative value of 3 different methods to solve typical real-life clinical dilemmas in a workshop setting. Three separate groups are required, the members of which may work in teams or individually, as preferred. The randomly selected members of each of the 3 groups would adopt different methodologies to independently solve identical cases. One group may rely solely on personal knowledge and experience, eventually with the aid of others (consultants) in their own group. The second group must make full use of evidence-based skills and the finest, relevant online resources, strictly adhering to the 5- or 6- step[1] approach. Finally, a third group, in contrast to both of the preceding, must make use of online resources available to the general public. Moreover, for this particular group the default assumption would be that players’ prior knowledge is inadequate, partial or, at best, outdated. Therefore, besides the focused clinical question, they would be invited to update their general knowledge on the topic in a given context, by utilizing any available CME tutorial materials needed to gain the minimal knowledge base, and eventually consider the specific question as an occasion to contemporaneously build on previous experiences or information. However, while adept in the critical appraisal and search skills of the evidence-based counterparts, these players differ from the latter in that they are to seek information that they deem credible, with no exclusive or preferential regard for rigorous evidence. In effect, this third group would be instructed to consider ‘evidence’, by and large, synonymous to ‘information’. One deliberate goal of adopting the third approach is to favour sensitivity when gleaning information, whereas highest-level evidence tends to be characterised by greater specificity, at best. However, to substantiate information and to provide for an adequate interpretation, it must be considered in aggregate, like the pieces of a puzzle. Furthermore, also permitted is a reliance on independent, corroborative data in the form of reviews, editorials, narratives, etc., representing learned analyses of the same body of literature on behalf of experts in the field (and of their critics). Knowledge, rather than evidence, is paramount here. After each group completes the exercise, the results are compared and discussed. Next, the groups alternate to another of the remaining methods and so on, until every one of the modalities has been experimented. What might eventuate from such an experiment is a matter of pure speculation, at present. Nonetheless, I consider this model of possible relevance to the debate on EBP (or Evidence-informed practice[2,3]). Also, it may be valuable in the design and evaluation of trials aiming to produce evidence in this setting, in addition to that of the related Knowledge Translation field. Then again, it might be nothing other than a mere game. For more information, please email John De Simone at kegwde@tin.it References: 1 Porzsolt F, Ohletz A, Thim A, Gardner D, Ruatti H, Meier H, Schlotz-Gorton N, Schrott L. Evidence-based decision making-- the 6-step approach. ACP J Club. 2003 Nov-Dec;139(3):A11-2. 2 Schriger DL, Cantrill SV, Greene CS. The origins, benefits, harms, and implications of emergency medicine clinical policies. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22:597-602. 3 Glasziou P. Evidence-informed practice and not Meme-BM [electronic response to Gabbay J, le May A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed "mindlines?" Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care]. BMJ 2004.

View PDFchevron_right
Lessons learned about implementing research evidence into clinical practice
Donna Espadas

Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2006

The mission of the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) quality enhancement research initiative (QUERI) is to enhance the quality of VHA health care by implementing clinical research findings into routine care. This paper presents lessons that QUERI investigators have learned through their initial attempts to pursue the QUERI mission. The lessons in this paper represent those that were common across multiple QUERI projects and were mutually agreed on as having substantial impact on the success of implementation. While the lessons are consistent with commonly recognized ingredients of successful implementation efforts, the examples highlight the fact that, even with a through knowledge of the literature and thoughtful planning, unexpected circumstances arise during implementation efforts that require flexibility and adaptability. The findings stress the importance of utilizing formative evaluation techniques to identify barriers to successful implementation and strategies to address these barriers.

View PDFchevron_right
Information-Seeking Behaviors and Other Factors Contributing to Successful Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in Local Health Departments
Paul Erwin

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 2012

The objective of this article is to describe factors which contribute to successful translation of science into evidence-based practices and their implementation in public health practice agencies, based on a review of the literature and evidence from a series of case studies. The case studies involved structured interviews with key informants in four health departments and with four corresponding partners from academic institutions. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, coded by two independent, trained coders, using a standard codebook. A thematic analysis of codes was conducted. Coding was entered into Atlas TI software for further analysis. Results from the literature review indicated that only approximately half of programs implemented in state and local health departments were evidence-based. Lack of time, inadequate funding, and absence of cultural and managerial support -including incentives -are among the most commonly cited barriers to implementing evidence-based practices. Findings from the case studies suggest that these health departments, successful in implementing evidence-based practices, have strong relationships and good communication channels established Disclosures: No disclosures.

View PDFchevron_right
Renewing Policy to Support Evidence-Based Health Care
Sue Dopson

Public …, 2009

Health systems internationally have developed policies to support evidence-based health care (EBHC) for over a decade. As this article shows, the time is ripe to review current policy frameworks in an evidence-based manner. We summarize key themes deriving from qualitative ...

View PDFchevron_right

References (83)

  1. McGinnis JM. Evidence-based Medicine - Engineering the Learning Healthcare System. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;153:145-57. PMID: 20543243.
  2. Guise J-M, Chang C, Viswanathan M, et al. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods for systematically reviewing complex multicomponent health care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(11):1181-91. PMID: 25438663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.01
  3. Guise J-M, Chang C, Butler ME, et al. AHRQ Series on complex intervention Systematic Reviews-Paper 1: An introduction to a series of papers that provide guidance and tools for reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; PMID: 28720511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.01
  4. Kelly MP, Noyes J, Kane RL, et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-Paper 2: Defining Complexity, Formulating Scope and Questions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; PMID: 28720514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.01
  5. Butler M, Epstein RA, Totten A, et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-Paper 3: Adapting frameworks to develop protocols. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; PMID: 28720510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.01
  6. Viswanathan M, McPheeters ML, Murad MH, et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-Paper 4: Selecting Analytic Approaches. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; PMID: 28720515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.01
  7. Pigott T, Noyes J, Umscheid CA, et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-Paper 5: Advanced Analytic Methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; PMID: 28720512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.01
  8. Guise J-M, Butler ME, Chang C, et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-Paper 6: PRISMA-CI Extension Statement & Checklist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; PMID: 28720516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.01
  9. Guise J-M, Butler M, Chang C, et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-Paper 7: PRISMA-CI Elaboration & Explanation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; PMID: 28720513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.01
  10. Hartling L, Guise J-M, Hempel S, et al. Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):32. PMID: 28212677. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0425-7.
  11. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Grimshaw JM, et al. Supporting the use of health technology assessments in policy making about health systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(4):405-14. PMID: 26362086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.08.0 11.
  12. Wallace BC, Small K, Brodley CE, et al. Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: abstrackr. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium. 2012:819-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2110363.2110464.
  13. Makkar SR, Williamson A, Turner T, et al. Using conjoint analysis to develop a system of scoring policymakers' use of research in policy and program development. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:35. PMID: 26238566. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961- 015-0022-y.
  14. Ølholm AM, Kidholm K, Birk-Olsen M, et al. Hospital Managers' Need for Information on Health Technology Investments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(6):414-25. PMID: 26875930. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646231500066
  15. Kidholm K, Olholm AM, Birk-Olsen M, et al. Hospital managers' need for information in decision-making--An interview study in nine European countries. Health Policy. 2015;119(11):1424-32. PMID: 26362086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.08.0 11.
  16. Goodman C. HTA 101: Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine (US). 2004..
  17. Luce BR, Brown RE. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11(1):79-92. PMID: 7706016.
  18. Jayakumar KL, Lavenberg JA, Mitchell MD, et al. Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence-based practice center and impact on hospital decision making. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(3):185-92. PMID: 26505618. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2498.
  19. Umscheid CA, Williams K, Brennan PJ. Hospital-based comparative effectiveness centers: translating research into practice to improve the quality, safety and value of patient care. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(12):1352-5. PMID: 20697961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1476-9.
  20. Gallego G, Fowler S, van Gool K. Decision makers' perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(3):520-7. PMID: 20387326.
  21. Gagnon M-P, Desmartis M, Poder T, et al. Effects and repercussions of local/hospital- based health technology assessment (HTA): a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):129. PMID: 25352182. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-129.
  22. Mitchell MD, Williams K, Kuntz G, et al. When the decision is what to decide: using evidence inventory reports to focus health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(2):127-32. PMID: 21450127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646231100003
  23. Gutowski C, Maa J, Hoo KS, et al. Health technology assessment at the University of California-San Francisco. J Healthc Manag. 2011;56(1):15-30. PMID: 21323025.
  24. Barbieri M, Hawkins N, Sculpher M. Who does the numbers? The role of third-party technology assessment to inform health systems' decision-making about the funding of health technologies. Value Health 2009;12(2):193-201. PMID: 18700865. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524- 4733.2008.00441.x.
  25. Harris C, Green S, Ramsey W, et al. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 1: Introducing a series of papers reporting an investigation of disinvestment in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17(1):323. PMID: 28472962. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2210-7.
  26. Crites GE, McNamara MC, Akl EA, et al. Evidence in the learning organization. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-7-4.
  27. Byrne MM, Charns MP, Parker VA, et al. The effects of organization on medical utilization: an analysis of service line organization. Med Care. 2004:28-37. PMID: 14713737. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000102493. 28759.71.
  28. Peterson K, Floyd N, Ferguson L, et al. User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):132. PMID: 27491354. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0306-5.
  29. Xie F, Bowen JM, Sutherland SC, et al. Using health technology assessment to support evidence-based decision-making in Canada: an academic perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(5):513-21. PMID: 21958096. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.60.
  30. Smith N, Mitton C, Peacock S, et al. Identifying research priorities for health care priority setting: a collaborative effort between managers and researchers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:165. PMID: 19754969. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472- 6963-9-165.
  31. Cumpston MS, Tavender EJ, Buchan HA, et al. Australian health policy makers' priorities for research synthesis: a survey. Aust Health Rev. 2012;36(4):401-11. PMID: 22951094. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH11064.
  32. Gurtner S. Making the right decisions about new technologies: a perspective on criteria and preferences in hospitals. Health care Manage Rev. 2014;39(3):245-54. PMID: 23727787. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e318299 3b91.
  33. Hartling L, Guise J-M, Kato E, et al. A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1451-62.e3. PMID: 26278023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.03
  34. Villa L, Warholak TL, Hines LE, et al. Health care decision makers' use of comparative effectiveness research: report from a series of focus groups. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013;19(9):745-54. PMID: 24156643. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2013.19.9.745 .
  35. Wye L, Brangan E, Cameron A, et al. Evidence based policy making and the 'art' of commissioning -how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in 'real life' decision- making: an empirical qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:430. PMID: 26416368. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913- 015-1091-x.
  36. Parker LE, Ritchie MJ, Kirchner JE, et al. Balancing health care evidence and art to meet clinical needs: policymakers' perspectives. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(6):970-5. PMID: 20367694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2753.2009.01209.x.
  37. Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016. PMID: 27353417. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2016.
  38. Moat KA, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, et al. Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):44-50. PMID: 23393042. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2012.011175.
  39. Gagnon M-P, Attieh R, Ghandour EK, et al. A systematic review of instruments to assess organizational readiness for knowledge translation in health care. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114338. PMID: 25474622. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.011433
  40. Catallo C, Sidani S. The Self-assessment for Organizational Capacity Instrument for evidence-informed health policy: preliminary reliability and validity of an instrument. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2014;11(1):35-45. PMID: 24127906. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12018.
  41. Lefebre N. Knowledge to action: integrating the use of evidence in management decision making. Healthc Manage Forum. 2010;23(2):48-57. PMID: 21739839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcmf.2010.04.005.
  42. Gifford W, Lefebre N, Davies B. An organizational intervention to influence evidence-informed decision making in home health nursing. J Nurs Adm. 2014;44(7/8):395-402. PMID: 25072229. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.000000000000 0089.
  43. Perrier L, Mrklas K, Lavis JN, et al. Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews by health policymakers and managers: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):43. PMID: 21524292. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748- 5908-6-43.
  44. Dobbins M, Hanna SE, Ciliska D, et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):61. PMID: 19775439. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-61.
  45. Ellen ME, Lavis JN, Sharon A, et al. Health systems and policy research evidence in health policy making in Israel: what are researchers' practices in transferring knowledge to policy makers? Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:67. PMID: 25491890. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-67.
  46. Ellen ME, Leon G, Bouchard G, et al. Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:179. PMID: 25476735. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012- 014-0179-8.
  47. Ellen ME, Leon G, Bouchard G, et al. What supports do health system organizations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making? A qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2013;8:84. PMID: 23915278. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748- 5908-8-84.
  48. Innis J, Dryden-Palmer K, Perreira T, et al. How do health care organizations take on best practices? A scoping literature review. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(4):254- 72. PMID: 26134546. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.000000000000 0049.
  49. Petkovic J, Welch V, Jacob MH, et al. The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):162. PMID: 27938409 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0530-3.
  50. Murthy L, Shepperd S, Clarke MJ, et al. Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; PMID: 22972142. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD00940
  51. Aicken CRH, Armstrong NT, Cassell JA, et al. Barriers and opportunities for evidence- based health service planning: the example of developing a Decision Analytic Model to plan services for sexually transmitted infections in the UK. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:202. PMID: 22805183. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-202.
  52. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, et al. Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcisionMaking--the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:270. PMID: 19102752 https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-270.
  53. Munn SR. Hospital-based health technology assessment: insights from New Zealand. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(9):815-7. PMID: 25117205 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0202-6.
  54. Chambers DA, Feero WG, Khoury MJ. Convergence of Implementation Science, Precision Medicine, and the Learning Health Care System: A New Model for Biomedical Research. JAMA. 2016;315(18):1941-2. PMID: 27163980. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.3867.
  55. Insitute of Medicine. Engineering a learning healthcare system: A look at the future: Workshop summary: Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
  56. Mitchell MD, Williams K, Brennan PJ, et al. Integrating local data into hospital-based healthcare technology assessment: two case studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):294-300. PMID: 20584358. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646231000033
  57. Fleming C. Berwick brings the 'Triple Aim'to CMS. Health Affairs Blog. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/09/1
  58. Insitute of Medicine. Integrating Research and Practice: Health System Leaders Working Toward High-Value Care: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.PMID: 25834870.
  59. Norris SL, Atkins D, Bruening W, et al. Observational studies in systemic reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(11):1178-86. PMID: 21636246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.02
  60. Murad MH, Almasri J, Alsawas M, et al. Grading the quality of evidence in complex interventions: a guide for evidence-based practitioners. Evid based Med. 2017;22(1):20-2. PMID: 27932400. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016- 110577.
  61. Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Schünemann HJ, et al. Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect. Evid Based Med. 2017:ebmed-2017-110668. PMID: 28320705. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017- 110668.
  62. Carter BJ. Evidence-based decision-making: practical issues in the appraisal of evidence to inform policy and practice. Aust Health Rev. 2010;34(4):435-40. PMID: 21108904. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH09778.
  63. Lewis S. Toward a general theory of indifference to research-based evidence. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(3):166-72. PMID: 17716420. https://doi.org/10.1258/13558190778154309
  64. Harris C, Allen K, Waller C, et al. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 5: developing a model for evidence-driven resource allocation in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):342. PMID: 28486973. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2208-1.
  65. Harris C, Allen K, Waller C, et al. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 7: Supporting staff in evidence-based decision- making, implementation and evaluation in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):430. PMID: 28637473. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2388-8.
  66. Insitute of Medicine. Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America:: Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013.
  67. Bindman AB. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Development of a Learning Health Care System. JAMA Intern Med. 2017; PMID: 28542694. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017. 2589.
  68. Bambra C, Joyce KE, Bellis MA, et al. Reducing health inequalities in priority public health conditions: using rapid review to develop proposals for evidence-based policy. J of Public Health (Oxf). 2010;32(4):496-505. PMID: 20435581. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdq028.
  69. Jackson GL, Zullig LL, Zafar SY, et al. Using NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology to measure the quality of colorectal cancer care in the veterans health administration. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11(4):431-41. PMID: 23584346.
  70. Moat KA, Lavis JN. 10 best resources for ... evidence-informed health policy making. Health Policy and Plan. 2013;28(2):215-8. PMID: 22717501. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czs050.
  71. Wilson MG, Moat KA, Lavis JN. The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:32. PMID: 24007378. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-11-32.
  72. Wilson MG, Lavis JN, Gauvin F-P. Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue. Syst Rev. 2015;4:25. PMID: 25875495. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643- 015-0009-3.
  73. Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, et al. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy breifs to support evidence- informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009(7(Suppl1):S13); PMID: 20018103. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478- 4505-7-S1-S13.
  74. Anonymous. Becoming a meaningful user of health IT. Hosp Health Netw. 2010;84(12):48-58. PMID: 21268505.
  75. Boyko JA. Evidence-informed health policy making in Canada: past, present, and future. J Evid based Med. 2015;8(4):215-21. PMID: 26275217. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12169.
  76. Goeree R, Levin L, Chandra K, et al. Health technology assessment and primary data collection for reducing uncertainty in decision making. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6(5):332-42. PMID: 19394574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.01.012.
  77. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Moat KA, et al. Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop'for research evidence about health systems. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(1):10. PMID: 25971248. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-13-10.
  78. Ritrovato M, Faggiano FC, Tedesco G, et al. Decision-Oriented Health Technology Assessment: One Step Forward in Supporting the Decision-Making Process in Hospitals. Value Health. 2015;18(4):505-11. PMID: 26091605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.002.
  79. Williams B, Perillo S, Brown T. What are the factors of organisational culture in health care settings that act as barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice? A scoping review. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35(2):e34-e41. PMID: 25482849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.11.012.
  80. Academic Medical Centers/mt, og or Accountable Care Organizations/mt, og or *Chief Executive Officers, Hospital/ or *Health Facility Administration/ or *Health Facility Administrators/ or Health Services/mt, og or Health Services Administration/ or *Health Systems Agencies/ or *Hospital Administration/ or *Hospital Administrators/ or exp *Hospitals/mt, og or *"Organization and Administration"/ or *Policy Making/ or Provider-Sponsored Organizations/mt, og or (administrat* or leader* or manager* or decision-making or decisionmaking or decision-maker* or policymaking or policymaker* or policy-maker* or learning-health*).ti,kf.
  81. Meta-Analysis as Topic/ or Review Literature as Topic/ or Health Services Research/ or Technology Assessment, Biomedical/ or Cost-Benefit Analysis/ or Evidence-Based Medicine/ or Evidence-Based Practice/ or "Practice Guidelines as Topic"/ or Guidelines as Topic/ or (guideline* or review* or synthes* or meta-analys* or evidence* or HTA* or technology assessment* or implement* or facilitator* or barrier* or "information need*").ti,kf.
  82. and/1-3 5 4 not Shared Decision-Making.ti,kf. 6 limit 5 to (english language and yr="2007 -Current")
  83. A-1

Related papers

Evidence-Based Practice in the United States: Challenges, Progress, and Future Directions
Rosaly Correa

Health Care for Women International, 2015

Scientific literature demonstrates that advances in evidence-based nursing have improved systems of care and women's health outcomes. Experts agree that nurses worldwide can play a key role in building such evidence and working with interdisciplinary health care teams and systems to accelerate its implementation. Evidence-based nursing is intended to standardize health care practices to the latest and best science available in order to minimize variations in care and avoid unanticipated health outcomes. How findings from evidence-based research are translated into effective nursing practices and policies considerably impacts health outcomes, the improvement of health care systems, and the performance of individual and group providers. . Significant barriers still exist in adopting or implementing evidence-based nursing . Despite nurses being the largest group of health professionals in the majority of health care systems worldwide, three immediate and internationally recognized challenges largely affect their ability to provide services including evidence-based care: 1) Limitations with health care systems, leading to decreased support for their education and development; 2) Prejudice against their intent to advance their practice; and, 3) Issues associated with workforce reduction. Other factors specifically stimulating or restricting the implementation of evidence-based nursing include nurses' basic research training, beliefs, and difficulties faced with eliciting and integrating patients' preferences . Communication skills and knowledge of culturally competent care can significantly lessen the challenges associated with eliciting and integrating patients' perspectives. The effects or benefits of patients' involvement in evidence-based nursing, however, are still an area of research in development (Strauss & Jones, 2004). Increasingly, health care teams and policymakers have involved nurses in decisionmaking, and their decisions can have important implications to patients' outcomes and wellbeing. Access to reliable evidence-based information, the ability to critically appraise and incorporate that evidence in clinical decisionmaking are critical steps toward successful implementation of evidence-based nursing . Frequently, though, * Disclaimer

View PDFchevron_right
Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Related Evidence
Cathy Melvin

2013

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidencebased Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist publicand private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States. The reports and assessments provide organizations with comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions and new health care technologies. The EPCs systematically review the relevant scientific literature on topics assigned to them by AHRQ and conduct additional analyses when appropriate prior to developing their reports and assessments. AHRQ expects that the EPC evidence reports and technology assessments will inform individual health plans, providers, and purchasers as well as the health care system as a whole by providing important information to help improve health care quality.

View PDFchevron_right
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of evidence-based practice among health-care professionals: Results of a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study
Vikram Vardhan

Medical journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, 2021

Objectives: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the awareness and attitude of hospital resident doctors towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) and their related educational needs. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed on a randomly selected sample of 141 hospital resident doctors from teaching hospitals. Awareness and Attitude towards EBM, accessing to internet and Midlines and perceived barriers to practice EBM among participants were the main outcome measures. Results: 92.1% strongly welcomed introduction and promotion of EBM in daily management of patients. About one-third of respondents (32.7%) thought that the most appropriate way to move towards EBM was by seeking and applying EBM summaries. Most of the participants had access to internet (82%) and those who were never heard or had a course on EBM were (85%). Only 10% who used EBM in 50% to 100% of their clinical practice. The major barriers to practicing EBM were no time due to patient overload (85%), lack of libraries (65%) limited resource (62%) and lack of training (60%). Most of the participants (79%) agreed to be one of the requirements of full registration in Sudan Medical Council. Conclusions: Although there is a high support among doctors for the promotion of EBM, there is a deficit in knowledge and lack of skills of EBM. Hence, the time is suitable for planning and implementing an effective EBM educational programme for both undergraduate and postgraduate doctors. Evidence-based medicine has limitations, and more efforts need to be directed toward improving doctors' skills and access to evidence at the point of care.

View PDFchevron_right
AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center Program: Applying the Knowledge to Practice to Data Cycle to Strengthen the Value of Patient Care
Christine Chang

Journal of Hospital Medicine

View PDFchevron_right
Getting evidence into practice: ingredients for change
Jo Rycroft-Malone

Nursing Standard, 2002

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Sociology
  • Computer Science
  • Health Informatics

    • Cited by

    A Narrative Review and Proposed Framework for Using Health System Data with Systematic Reviews to Support Decision-making
    Brian Leas

    Journal of General Internal Medicine

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved