A Re-Consideration of What Constitutes “Evidence” in the Healthcare Professions

Pearson, Alan; Wiechula, Rick; Court, Anthea; Lockwood, Craig

doi:10.1177/0894318406296306

Cited by 78 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there is no absolute consensus within nursing or other disciplines about how best to define and rank evidence, it is generally accepted that the research methods that can provide the strongest evidence will vary depending on the question being asked [41,44,54]. The ability to identify the category of study that will best address a question is a core skill in evidence-based health care, and practitioners must be familiar with the study methodologies that offer the best evidence on the questions likely to arise in their practices and organizational settings.…”

Section: Finding and Evaluating The Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Making Evidence-Based Decisions in Nursing

Cajulis

Beam

Davis

2010

Evidence-Based Practice: Toward Optimizing Clinical Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Finding and Evaluating The Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Making Evidence-Based Decisions in Nursing

Cajulis

Beam

Davis

2010

Evidence-Based Practice: Toward Optimizing Clinical Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in health care, as well as evidence of effectiveness derived from traditional randomised controlled trials, evidence also needs to encompass feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness. 79 The implicit position of the NIHR, 80 in relation to this field of inquiry, is complex. In the commissioning brief for this study, they noted the use of various terms and chose to adopt the term 'innovation and knowledge transfer'.…”

Section: Knowledge and Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Getting the most out of knowledge and innovation transfer agents in health care: a qualitative study

Bullock

Barnes

Morris³

et al. 2016

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundKnowledge and innovation transfer (KIT) is recognised internationally as a complex, dynamic process that is difficult to embed in organisations. There is growing use of health service–academic–industry collaborations in the UK, with knowledge brokers linking producers with the users of knowledge and innovation.AimFocusing on KIT ‘agent’ roles within Academic Health Science Networks in England and Partnerships in Wales, we show how individual dispositions, processes and content contribute to desired outcomes.MethodsWe studied the KIT intentions of all Academic Health Science Networks in England, and the South East Wales Academic Health Science Partnership. Using a qualitative case study design, we studied the work of 13 KIT agents purposively sampled from five networks, by collecting data from observation of meetings, documentation, KIT agent audio-diaries, and semistructured interviews with KIT agents, their line managers and those they supported (‘Links’). We also used a consensus method in a meeting of experts (nominal group technique) to discuss the measurement of outcomes of KIT agent activity.FindingsThe case study KIT agents were predominantly from a clinical background with differing levels of experience and expertise, with the shared aim of improving services and patient care. Although outside of recognised career structures, the flexibility afforded to KIT agents to define their role was an enabler of success. Other helpful factors included (1) time and resources to devote to KIT activity; (2) line manager support and a team to assist in the work; and (3) access and the means to use data for improvement projects. The organisational and political context could be challenging. KIT agents not only tackled local barriers such as siloed working, but also navigated shifting regional and national policies. Board-level support for knowledge mobilisation together with a culture of reflection (listening to front-line staff), openness to challenges and receptivity to research all enabled KIT agents to achieve desired outcomes. Nominal group findings underscored the importance of relating measures to specific intended outcomes. However, the case studies highlighted that few measures were employed by KIT agents and their managers. Using social marketing theory helped to show linkages between processes, outcomes and impact, and drew attention to how KIT agents developed insight into their clients’ needs and tailored work accordingly.LimitationsLevel of KIT agent participation varied; line managers and Links were interviewed only once; and outcomes were self-reported.ConclusionsSocial marketing theory provided a framework for analysing KIT agent activity. The preparatory work KIT agents do in listening, understanding local context and building relationships enabled them to develop ‘insight’ and adapt their ‘offer’ to clients to achieve desired outcomes.Future workThe complexity of the role and the environment in which it is played out justifies more research on KIT agents. Suggestions include (1) longitudinal study of career pathways; (2) how roles are negotiated within teams and how competing priorities are managed; (3) how success is measured; (4) the place of improvement methodologies within KIT work; (5) the application of social marketing theory to comparative study of similar roles; and (6) patients as KIT agents.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

“…More credibility is given to the SE obtained through research developed with theoreti cal and methodological rigor. Nonetheless, experts' opinion can best represent SE in cases they are inexistent (11) .…”

Section: What Are the Perti Nent Sources Of Informati On To Identify mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meaningfulness occurs when the pati ent or target populati on sees the interventi on as a positi ve experience, personally and in terms of their opinions, values, thoughts, beliefs and interpretati ons. Eff ecti veness refers to the extension to which an interventi on reaches the expected eff ect (11) . The JBI introduced the SUMARI soft ware, which helps to evaluate the FAME criteria (3) .…”

Section: What Is Scienti Fi C Evidence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisão sistemática: noções gerais

De-La-Torre-Ugarte-Guanilo

Takahashi

Bertolozzi

2011

Rev. esc. enferm. USP

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Português / Inglês www.scielo.br/reeusp RESUMO A revisão sistemáti ca é uma metodologia úti l em saúde, dado que possibilita identifi car as melhores evidências e sinteti zá-las, para fundamentar propostas de mudanças nas áreas de prevenção, diagnósti co, tratamento e reabilitação. ABSTRACTSystemati c review is a useful methodology in health, as it makes it possible to identi fy the best evidence and sumamrize them so as to found proposals for changes in the areas of preventi on, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitati on. The purpose of this arti cle is to provide support for planning systemati c reviews by answering the following questi ons: What is evidence-based practi ce? What is systemati c review? Should systemati c reviews be anchored on qualitati ve or quanti tati ve research? What are the perti nent informati on sources to identi fy the evidence? What is evidence? What are the procedures to validate a systemati c review? How can the quality of evidence be evaluated? What methodology is used to summarize the evidence? How should a systemati c review be planned? DESCRIPTORSEvidence-based medicine Evidence-based nursing Meta-analysis Nursing research Qualitati ve research RESUMENLa revisión sistemáti ca es una metodología úti l en salud, dado que posibilita identi fi car las mejores evidencias y sinteti zarlas para fundamentar propuestas de cambio en las áreas de prevención, diagnósti co, tratamiento y rehabilitación. Este artí culo ti ene como objeti vo ofrecer ayuda para la planifi cación de la revisión sistemáti ca, respondiendo a las siguientes preguntas: ¿Qué es la Prácti ca Basada en Evidencias? ¿Qué es la revisión sistemáti ca? ¿La revisión sistemáti ca debe estar respaldada por investi gaciones cualitati vas o cuanti tati vas? ¿Cuáles son las fuentes de información perti nentes para identi fi car las evidencias? ¿Qué es evidencia? ¿Cuáles son los procedimientos para validar la revisión sistemáti ca? ¿Cómo evaluar la calidad de las evidencias? ¿Qué metodología es uti lizada para la síntesis de las evidencias? ¿Cómo planifi car la revisión sistemáti ca? DESCRIPTORESMedicina basada en evidencia Enfermería basada en la evidencia Metanálisis Investi gación en enfermería Investi gación cualitati va

show abstract

A Re-Consideration of What Constitutes “Evidence” in the Healthcare Professions

Cited by 78 publications

References 9 publications

Making Evidence-Based Decisions in Nursing

Making Evidence-Based Decisions in Nursing

Getting the most out of knowledge and innovation transfer agents in health care: a qualitative study

Revisão sistemática: noções gerais

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About