Effect of Linking Practice Data to Published Evidence

Balas, E. Andrew; Boren, Suzanne Austin; Hicks, Lanis L.; Chonko, Arnold M.; Stephenson, Karen

doi:10.1097/00005650-199801000-00009

Cited by 28 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, in practice, intervention decisions are often based on perceived short-term opportunities, lacking systematic planning and review of the best evidence regarding effective approaches [4] thus resulting in slow uptake of research evidence in practice. It has been estimated that it takes an average of 17 years for 14% of research to translate into practice [5] . More recent results show that even in clinical practice which is supposed to be more evidence oriented, the uptake of evidence has not changed substantially since then, indicating that the gap between evidence and practice has not diminished substantially [6] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries

Goor

Hämäläinen

Syed³

et al. 2017

Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HighlightsMedia attitude towards underpinning policy with evidence influences policy decision makers.Individual skills, attitudes, values of policy makers impact the extent evidence use.A solid research infrastructure is facilitating but not sufficient for evidence use.Factors that impact evidence use in policy making differ by country and policy context.Interventions connecting policy makers and researchers in the policy context seem most promising.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries

Goor

Hämäläinen

Syed³

et al. 2017

Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[33]. Regrettably, the rate of the uptake of research evidence in practice is very low, as it is estimated to take an only 14% of research for an average of 17 years to be translated into practice [34].…”

Section: Waste Of Research a Serious Setbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Waste of Research. Is There Any Solution? “Beginning from the Beginning” instead of “Beginning from the End”

Amirfakhryan

2020

Arch. clin. med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have always been challenges concerning tackling knowledge to practice. It is estimated that 85% of the investment in health research are wasted. Due to low quality, not all systematic review and meta-analysis are placed at the top of the hierarchy of evidence. Many individual clinical trials do not have the essential standards; therefore, conducting systematic reviews based on these low-quality individual studies is unreliable as they cannot be applied in healthcare decision-making and lead to resource waste. To overcome this great issue, several organizations have been worked hard to improve data extraction from only well-developed individual studies. However, it is not sufficient. It is time to stop and look back all years behind. It is time to reconsider our efforts to make the best conclusion in order to prohibit the huge waste of energy, time, and resources. The old viewpoint “the Beginning from the End” must be replaced with the new one “the Beginning from the Beginning”. It means, we must do all struggles to conduct clinical trials in a standard high-quality format from the beginning as much as we could. Although, it does not seem easy, it might be possible by funding a high discipline, well-respected organization that is engaged in this critical issue. The supposed organization must define standards, flexible criteria for clinical trials, and all investigators must perform clinical trials under the supervision of this organization. Providing a considerable financial resource to grant the researches of the low- and middle-income countries to do clinical trials based on the designed protocol, considering an independent, high discipline journal for publishing well-conducted clinical trials regardless of their results, teaching researchers, considering another efficient policy to rank the journals rather than “impact factor” could help achieve this far-reach goal.

show abstract

How to Use an Article About Quality Improvement

Fan

Laupacis

Pronovost³

et al. 2010

JAMA

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality improvement (QI) attempts to change clinician behavior and, through those changes, lead to improved patient outcomes. The methodological quality of studies evaluating the effectiveness of QI interventions is frequently low. Clinicians and others evaluating QI studies should be aware of the risk of bias, should consider whether the investigators measured appropriate outcomes, should be concerned if there has been no replication of the findings, and should consider the likelihood of success of the QI intervention in their practice setting and the costs and possibility of unintended effects of its implementation. This article complements and enhances existing Users' Guides that address the effects of interventions-Therapy, Harm, Clinical Decision Support Systems, and Summarizing the Evidence guides-with an emphasis on issues specific to QI studies. Given the potential for widespread implementation of QI interventions, there is a need for robust study methods in QI research.

show abstract

Effect of Linking Practice Data to Published Evidence

Cited by 28 publications

References 13 publications

Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries

Determinants of evidence use in public health policy making: Results from a study across six EU countries

Waste of Research. Is There Any Solution? “Beginning from the Beginning” instead of “Beginning from the End”

How to Use an Article About Quality Improvement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About