The Canadian National EMS Research Agenda: Impact and Feasibility of Implementation of Previously Generated Recommendations

Jensen, Jan; Blanchard, Ian E.; Bigham, Blair L.; Carter, Alix; Brown, Ryan M; Socha, Doug; Brown, Lawrence H.; Travers, Andrew H.; Craig, Alan; Morrison, Laurie J.

doi:10.1017/cem.2015.29

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies on the dissemination of recommendations towards professionals are extensively described in the literature (e.g. [ 7 – 12 ]). However, it is not systematically investigated which strategies are feasible for the dissemination of recommendations to patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for disseminating recommendations or guidelines to patients: a systematic review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aim of this systematic literature review was to assess what dissemination strategies are feasible to inform and educate patients about recommendations (also known as guidelines).MethodsThe search was performed in February 2016 in PubMed, Ebsco/PsycINFO, Ebsco/CINAHL and Embase. Studies evaluating dissemination strategies, involving patients and/or reaching patients, were included. A hand search and a search in the grey literature, also done in February 2016, were added. Searches were not restricted by language or publication type.Publications that referred to (1) guideline(s) or recommendation(s), (2) dissemination, (3) dissemination with patients/patient organisations and (4) dissemination to patients/patient organisations were included in this article. Criteria 1 AND 2 were mandatory together with criteria 3 OR 4.ResultsThe initial search revealed 3753 unique publications. Forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for detailed review. The hand search and grey literature resulted in four relevant articles. After reading the full text of the 47 articles, 21 were relevant for answering our research question. Most publications had low levels of evidence, 3 or 4 of the Oxford levels of evidence. One article had a level of evidence of 2(b).This article gives an overview of tools and strategies to disseminate recommendations to patients. Key factors of success were a dissemination plan, written at the start of the recommendation development process, involvement of patients in this development process and the use of a combination of traditional and innovative dissemination tools. The lack of strong evidence calls for more research of the effectiveness of different dissemination strategies as well as the barriers for implementing a strategic approach of dissemination.ConclusionOur findings provide the first systematic overview of tools and strategies to disseminate recommendations to patients and patient organisations. Participation of patients in the whole process is one of the most important findings. These findings are relevant to develop, implement and evaluate more (effective) dissemination strategies which can improve health care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0447-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for disseminating recommendations or guidelines to patients: a systematic review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the 2015 Canadian Research Agenda for EMS research, most strengths, opportunities, barriers, and recommendations pertained to funding, time for doing research, and organizational culture [ 12 ]. Likewise, the 2003 USA research agenda addresses five major impediments for the performance of high-quality EMS research in the USA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, an indepth analysis of current opportunities and barriers for performing research in EMS was not explored. Initiatives from other countries (e.g., Canada) have shown that a focus on opportunities and barriers can be extremely instrumental when it comes to setting priorities for research and improving the basic conditions needed for effective EMS research [11][12][13]. We hypothesize that this will also be true for the Netherlands.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Opportunities and barriers for prehospital emergency medical services research in the Netherlands; results of a mixed-methods consensus study

Vianen

Maissan

Hartog

et al. 2023

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Quality improvement in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) can only be achieved by high-quality research and critical appraisal of current practices. This study examines current opportunities and barriers in EMS research in the Netherlands. Methods This mixed-methods consensus study consisted of three phases. The first phase consisted of semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders. Thematic analysis of qualitative data derived from these interviews was used to identify main themes, which were subsequently discussed in several online focus groups in the second phase. Output from these discussions was used to shape statements for an online Delphi consensus study among relevant stakeholders in EMS research. Consensus was met if 80% of respondents agreed or disagreed on a particular statement. Results Forty-nine stakeholders participated in the study; qualitative thematic analysis of the interviews and focus group discussions identified four main themes: (1) data registration and data sharing, (2) laws and regulations, (3) financial aspects and funding, and (4) organization and culture. Qualitative data from the first two phases of the study were used to construct 33 statements for an online Delphi study. Consensus was reached on 21 (64%) statements. Eleven (52%) of these statements pertained to the storage and use of EMS patient data. Conclusion Barriers for prehospital EMS research in the Netherlands include issues regarding the use of patient data, privacy and legislation, funding and research culture in EMS organizations. Opportunities to increase scientific productivity in EMS research include the development of a national strategy for EMS data and the incorporation of EMS topics in research agendas of national medical professional associations.

show abstract

“…Despite some relationship difficulties, most papers reported a general acceptance of the important role that regulation plays in terms of enhanced standards of practice, public safety and the reassurance and trust that regulation confers on professions [72,73]. This positive perspective is lent support by two papers studying professions not yet regulated, naturopathy [74] and massage therapy, which conclude that regulation would benefit public, practitioners and profession alike [75].…”

Section: Relations With the Regulatory Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent research into healthcare professions regulation: a rapid evidence assessment

Browne

Bullock

Poletti

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims Over the last decade, regulators have taken significant steps towards tackling perceptions that regulatory systems are burdensome. There has been much international research activity in the regulation of health and care professionals. This article reports a review of studies on health professions regulation between January 2011 and March 2020. Its chief object was to provide robust and up-to-date evidence to assist regulators in policy development and implementation. The main objectives of this study were to: Identify and retrieve research in the field of health and care professions regulation in English since 2011; Evaluate the published research, exploring its utility to regulators and practitioners, and drawing out any key messages; Draw conclusions concerning the scope and limitations of the research literature and identify areas for further research. Methods We undertook a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of the international literature on health and care professions regulation, including reviewing ten UK regulators’ websites to identify issues of concern and strategic priorities. We retrieved 3833 references, using a four-stage screening process to select the 81 most relevant. Results Results are reported within six key themes: harm prevention and patient safety; fitness to practise; quality assurance of education and training; registration including maintenance of registers; guidelines and standards and relations with regulatory bodies. Conclusions Regulation of professionals in health and care is comparatively undeveloped as a field of academic study. Consequently, the published evidence is diffuse and small-scale. Most work presents relatively weak data of low relevance to regulators, mainly reporting or describing the current position. Few studies are able to show the impact of regulation or demonstrate a causal link between regulation and its effects. To inform their research and policy agendas health and social care regulators need to commission, interpret and apply the scholarly literature more effectively; academics need to engage with regulators to ensure that their research provides high-quality evidence with practical relevance to the regulators’ agendas. Further study is needed to explore how effective academic collaborations between regulators and researchers may be created and sustained.

show abstract

The Canadian National EMS Research Agenda: Impact and Feasibility of Implementation of Previously Generated Recommendations

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Strategies for disseminating recommendations or guidelines to patients: a systematic review

Strategies for disseminating recommendations or guidelines to patients: a systematic review

Opportunities and barriers for prehospital emergency medical services research in the Netherlands; results of a mixed-methods consensus study

Recent research into healthcare professions regulation: a rapid evidence assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About