Innovation in healthcare: how does credible evidence influence professionals?

Fitzgerald, Louise; Ferlie, Ewan; Hawkins, Christine J.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2524.2003.00426.x

Cited by 78 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As is noted elsewhere, the evidence-based ideology presented by healthcare services does not fully explain how certain treatments come to be accepted and others do not (Fitzgerald et al, 2003;Morgan, 2010). The analysis of bibliotherapy presented here reveals some of the methods used to encourage acceptance of its use in healthcare, specifically examining the current need of healthcare service providers to offer an accessible, low-cost treatment for mild to moderate mental health problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Legitimising bibliotherapy: evidence‐based discourses in healthcare

Brewster

Sen

Cox

2012

Journal of Documentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legitimising bibliotherapy: from problematisation to irreversibility? PurposeTo explore how a self-help bibliotherapy scheme became national policy, focusing on its legitimisation via policy agendas and institutional discourses.Design/methodology/approach A mixed methodological approach was used to gather data, incorporating semi-structured interviews, documents and descriptive statistics. Actor-Network Theory (ANT) was used as a critical lens to frame analysis. FindingsThe study concludes that that while the scheme is presented as evidence based by the focal actors in the scheme, in practice, the bibliotherapy scheme is introduced in response to a number of pressing institutional requisite agendas. Research limitations/implicationsLimitations of the research include the absent voice of the patient, and future research should aim to present a more patient-centred account to compliment this policy-focused work. Originality/valueLittle in-depth work has been conducted on the strategy behind the introduction of bibliotherapy schemes in the UK or elsewhere, and this paper presents an in-depth theoretical analysis of the first nationalised bibliotherapy scheme in the world.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Legitimising bibliotherapy: evidence‐based discourses in healthcare

Brewster

Sen

Cox

2012

Journal of Documentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, a mismatch between use of most trials by clinicians (to inform decisions about patient management) and the design of the trials (to test a causal relationship between an intervention and some physiologic outcome) means that many clinicians are left without direct evidence to inform their patient care decisions 45 . The broader use of pragmatic rcts 44-46 -which recruit typical participants from heterogeneous practice settings, use a broad range of outcome measures, and select clinically relevant comparators-may help to alleviate concerns about the applicability of rcts to everyday practice [47][48][49][50] , provide evidence that is more relevant to patients and clinicians, and thus be better equipped to inform real-world clinical decisions. For the areas of care in which rct designs have been widely criticized (surgery, for instance 51,52 ), research designs have to be refined and innovative tools developed to address specific shortcomings in methodology (single-institution studies and difficulty in standardizing procedures, for example).…”

Section: E514mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Disciplinary Research in Cancer: An Opportunity to Narrow the Knowledge–Practice Gap

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health services researchers have consistently identified a gap between what is identified as “best practice” and what actually happens in clinical care. Despite nearly two decades of a growing evidence-based practice movement, narrowing the knowledge–practice gap continues to be a slow, complex, and poorly understood process. Here, we contend that cross-disciplinary research is increasingly relevant and important to reducing that gap, particularly research that encompasses the notion of transdisciplinarity, wherein multiple academic disciplines and non-academic individuals and groups are integrated into the research process. The assimilation of diverse perspectives, research approaches, and types of knowledge is potentially effective in helping research teams tackle real-world patient care issues, create more practice-based evidence, and translate the results to clinical and community care settings. The goals of this paper are to present and discuss cross-disciplinary approaches to health research and to provide two examples of how engaging in such research may optimize the use of research in cancer care.

show abstract

“…53 Despite the value given to research evidence, however, "credible" research evidence has no clear or agreed-upon definition. For example, physicians have questioned the significance of randomized controlled trials to practice, due to their limited applicability to everyday practice 54 and methodological concerns (eg, too few subjects). 55 Moreover, physicians often view clinical experience as more important than research knowledge.…”

Section: Promoting Action On Research Implementation In Health Servicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Usefulness of Two Conceptual Frameworks for Understanding How Organizational Factors Influence Innovation Implementation in Cancer Care

Urquhart¹,

Sargeant²,

Grunfeld³

2013

Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moving knowledge into practice and the implementation of innovations in health care remain significant challenges. Few researchers adequately address the influence of organizations on the implementation of innovations in health care. The aims of this article are to (1) present 2 conceptual frameworks for understanding the organizational factors important to the successful implementation of innovations in health care settings; (2) discuss each in relation to the literature; and (3) briefly demonstrate how each may be applied to 3 initiatives involving the implementation of a specific innovation-synoptic reporting tools-in cancer care. Synoptic reporting tools capture information from diagnostic tests, surgeries, and pathology examinations in a standardized, structured manner and contain only the information necessary for patient care. The frameworks selected were the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework and an organizational framework of innovation implementation; these frameworks arise from different disciplines (nursing and management, respectively). The constructs from each framework are examined in relation to the literature, with each construct applied to synoptic reporting tool implementation to demonstrate how each may be used to inform both practice and research in this area. By improving our understanding of existing frameworks, we enhance our ability to more effectively study and target implementation processes.

show abstract

Innovation in healthcare: how does credible evidence influence professionals?

Cited by 78 publications

References 26 publications

Legitimising bibliotherapy: evidence‐based discourses in healthcare

Legitimising bibliotherapy: evidence‐based discourses in healthcare

Cross-Disciplinary Research in Cancer: An Opportunity to Narrow the Knowledge–Practice Gap

Exploring the Usefulness of Two Conceptual Frameworks for Understanding How Organizational Factors Influence Innovation Implementation in Cancer Care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About