Dataset Information

Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A range of evidence informs decision-making on innovation in health care, including formal research findings, local data and professional opinion. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of evidence for innovations into practice. In addition to the characteristics of evidence, it is known that processes at the individual level influence its impact on decision-making. Less is known about the ways in which processes at the professional, organisational and local system level shape evidence use and its role in decisions to adopt innovations. METHODS:A systematic scoping review was used to review the health literature on innovations within acute and primary care and map processes at the professional, organisational and local system levels which influence how evidence informs decision-making on innovation. Stakeholder feedback on the themes identified was collected via focus groups to test and develop the findings. RESULTS:Following database and manual searches, 31 studies reporting primary qualitative data met the inclusion criteria: 24 were of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the thematic analysis. Evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by multi-level processes (professional, organisational, local system) and interactions across these levels. Preferences for evidence vary by professional group and health service setting. Organisations can shape professional behaviour by requiring particular forms of evidence to inform decision-making. Pan-regional organisations shape innovation decision-making at lower levels. Political processes at all levels shape the selection and use of evidence in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:The synthesis of results from primary qualitative studies found that evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by processes at multiple levels. Interactions between different levels shape evidence use in decision-making (e.g. professional groups and organisations can use local systems to validate evidence and legitimise innovations, while local systems can tailor or frame evidence to influence activity at lower levels). Organisational leaders need to consider whether the environment in which decisions are made values diverse evidence and stakeholder perspectives. Further qualitative research on decision-making practices that highlights how and why different types of evidence come to count during decisions, and tracks the political aspects of decisions about innovation, is needed.

SUBMITTER: Turner S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5715650 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback.

Turner Simon S D'Lima Danielle D Hudson Emma E Morris Stephen S Sheringham Jessica J Swart Nick N Fulop Naomi J NJ

Implementation science : IS 20171204 1

<h4>Background</h4>A range of evidence informs decision-making on innovation in health care, including formal research findings, local data and professional opinion. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of evidence for innovations into practice. In addition to the characteristics of evidence, it is known that processes at the individual level influence its impact on decision-making. Less is known about the ways in which processes at the professional, organis ...[more]

PMID: 29202772

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublic health decision-making structures in England have transformed since the implementation of reforms in 2013, with responsibility for public health services and planning having shifted from the "health" boundary to local authority (LA; local government) control. This transformation may have interrupted flows of research evidence use in decision-making and introduced a new political element to public health decision-making. For generators of research evidence, understanding and responding to this new landscape and decision-makers' evidence needs is essential.MethodsWe conducted a systematic scoping review of the literature, drawing upon four databases and undertaking manual searching and citation tracking. Included studies were English-based, published in 2010 onwards, and were focused on public health decision-making, including the utilisation or underutilisation of research evidence use, in local (regional or sub-regional) areas. All studies presented empirical findings collected through primary research methods or through the reanalysis of existing primary data.ResultsFrom a total of 903 records, 23 papers from 21 studies were deemed to be eligible and were included for further data extraction. Three clear trends in evidence use were identified: (i) the primacy of local evidence, (ii) the important role of local experts in providing evidence and knowledge, and (iii) the high value placed on local evaluation evidence despite the varying methodological rigour. Barriers to the use of research evidence included issues around access and availability of applicable research evidence, and indications that the use of evidence could be perceived as a bureaucratic process. Two new factors resulting from reforms to public health structures were identified that potentially changed existing patterns of research evidence use and decision-making requirements: (i) greater emphasis among public health practitioners on the perceived uniqueness of LA areas and structures following devolution of public health into LAs and (ii) challenges introduced in responding to higher levels of local political accountability.ConclusionsThere is a need to better understand and respond to the evidence needs of decision-makers working in public health and to work more collaboratively in developing solutions to the underutilisation of research evidence in decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.MethodsTo locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.Findings18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.ConclusionsTo more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.

Project description:BackgroundCollective intelligence, facilitated by information technology or manual techniques, refers to the collective insight of groups working on a task and has the potential to generate more accurate information or decisions than individuals can make alone. This concept is gaining traction in healthcare and has potential in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. We aim to characterize the current state of research with respect to collective intelligence in medical decision-making and describe a framework for diverse studies in this topic.MethodsFor this systematic scoping review, we conducted a systematic search for published literature using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL on August 8, 2017. We included studies that combined the insights of two or more medical experts to make decisions related to patient care. Studies that examined medical decisions such as diagnosis, treatment, and management in the context of an actual or theoretical patient case were included. We include studies of complex medical decision-making rather than identification of a visual finding, as in radiology or pathology. We differentiate between medical decisions, in which synthesis of multiple types of information is required over time, and studies of radiological scans or pathological specimens, in which objective identification of a visual finding is performed. Two reviewers performed article screening, data extraction, and final inclusion for analysis.ResultsOf 3303 original articles, 15 were included. Each study examined the medical decisions of two or more individuals; however, studies were heterogeneous in their methods and outcomes. We present a framework to characterize these diverse studies, and future investigations, based on how they operationalize collective intelligence for medical decision-making: 1) how the initial decision task was completed (group vs. individual), 2) how opinions were synthesized (information technology vs. manual vs. in-person), and 3) the availability of collective intelligence to participants.DiscussionCollective intelligence in medical decision-making is gaining popularity to advance medical decision-making and holds promise to improve patient outcomes. However, heterogeneous methods and outcomes make it difficult to assess the utility of collective intelligence approaches across settings and studies. A better understanding of collective intelligence and its applications to medicine may improve medical decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundNurses are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making (EIDM); the use of research evidence with information about patient preferences, clinical context and resources, and their clinical expertise in decision making. Strategies for enhancing EIDM have been synthesized in high-quality systematic reviews, yet most relate to physicians or mixed disciplines. Existing reviews, specific to nursing, have not captured a broad range of strategies for promoting the knowledge and skills for EIDM, patient outcomes as a result of EIDM, or contextual information for why these strategies "work."AimTo conduct a scoping review to identify and map the literature related to strategies implemented among nurses in tertiary care for promoting EIDM knowledge, skills, and behaviours, as well as patient outcomes and contextual implementation details.MethodsA search strategy was developed and executed to identify relevant research evidence. Participants included registered nurses, clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, and advanced practice nurses. Strategies were those enhancing nurses' EIDM knowledge, skills, or behaviours, as well as patient outcomes. Relevant studies included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials (including controlled before and after studies), cluster non-randomized trials, interrupted time series designs, prospective cohort studies, mixed-method studies, and qualitative studies. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using standardized forms. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or third party adjudication.ResultsUsing a narrative synthesis, the body of research was mapped by design, clinical areas, strategies, and provider and patient outcomes to determine areas appropriate for a systematic review.ConclusionsThere are a sufficiently high number of studies to conduct a more focused systematic review by care settings, study design, implementation strategies, or outcomes. A focused review could assist in determining which strategies can be recommended for enhancing EIDM knowledge, skills, and behaviours among nurses in tertiary care.

Project description:ObjectivesCognitive and other biases can influence the quality of healthcare decision making. While substantial research has explored how biases can lead to diagnostic or other errors in medicine, fewer studies have examined how they impact the decision making of other healthcare professionals. This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesise a broad range of research investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken in duplicate, using prespecified eligibility criteria designed to identify studies attempting to demonstrate the presence of bias when allied healthcare professionals make decisions. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, focussing on the type of allied health profession, type of decision, and type of bias reported within the included studies.ResultsThe search strategy identified 149 studies. Of these, 119 studies came from the field of psychology, with substantially fewer from social work, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology, audiology and genetic counselling. Diagnostic and assessment decisions were the most common decision types, with fewer studies assessing treatment, prognostic or other clinical decisions. Studies investigated the presence of over 30 cognitive, affective and other decision making biases, including stereotyping biases, anchoring, and confirmation bias. Overall, 77% of the studies reported at least one outcome that represented the presence of a bias.ConclusionThis scoping review provides an overview of studies investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases. Biases have the potential to seriously impact the quality, consistency and accuracy of decision making in allied health practice. The findings highlight a need for further research particularly in professional disciplines outside of psychology, using methods that reflect real life healthcare decision making.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise the existing literature on care transition planning from the perspectives of older adults, caregivers and health professionals and to identify the factors that may influence these stakeholders' transition decision-making processes.DesignA scoping review guided by Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted on 7 January 2021 to identify articles in five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and AgeLine). Records were included when they described care transition planning in an institutional setting from the perspectives of the care triad (older adults, caregivers and health professionals). No date or study design restrictions were imposed.SettingThis review explored care transitions involving older adults from an institutional care setting to any other institutional or non-institutional care setting. Institutional care settings include communal facilities where individuals dwell for short or extended periods of time and have access to healthcare services.ParticipantsOlder adults (aged 65 or older), caregivers and health professionals.Results39 records were included. Stakeholder involvement in transition planning varied across the studies. Transition decisions were largely made by health professionals, with limited or unclear involvement from older adults and caregivers. Seven factors appeared to guide transition planning across the stakeholder groups: (a) institutional priorities and requirements; (b) resources; (c) knowledge; (d) risk; (e) group structure and dynamic; (f) health and support needs; and (g) personality preferences and beliefs. Factors were described at microlevels, mesolevels and macrolevels.ConclusionsThis review explored stakeholder involvement in transition planning and identified seven factors that appear to influence transition decision-making. These factors may be useful in advancing the delivery of person and family-centred care by determining how individual-level, group-level and system-level values guide decision-making. Further research is needed to understand how various stakeholder groups balance these factors during transition planning in different health contexts.

Project description:BackgroundWith rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.MethodsA systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.ConclusionThere are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.

Project description:BackgroundThe current state of evidence regarding measures that assess evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, behaviours) among nurses is unknown. This systematic review provides a narrative synthesis of the psychometric properties and general characteristics of EIDM competence attribute measures in nursing.MethodsThe search strategy included online databases, hand searches, grey literature, and content experts. To align with the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews, psychometric outcome data (i.e., acceptability, reliability, validity) were extracted in duplicate, while all remaining data (i.e., study and measure characteristics) were extracted by one team member and checked by a second member for accuracy. Acceptability data was defined as measure completion time and overall rate of missing data. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing was used as the guiding framework to define reliability, and validity evidence, identified as a unified concept comprised of four validity sources: content, response process, internal structure and relationships to other variables. A narrative synthesis of measure and study characteristics, and psychometric outcomes is presented across measures and settings.ResultsA total of 5883 citations were screened with 103 studies and 35 unique measures included in the review. Measures were used or tested in acute care (n?=?31 measures), public health (n?=?4 measures), home health (n?=?4 measures), and long-term care (n?=?1 measure). Half of the measures assessed a single competence attribute (n?=?19; 54.3%). Three measures (9%) assessed four competence attributes of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs and behaviours. Regarding acceptability, overall missing data ranged from 1.6-25.6% across 11 measures and completion times ranged from 5 to 25?min (n?=?4 measures). Internal consistency reliability was commonly reported (21 measures), with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.45-0.98. Two measures reported four sources of validity evidence, and over half (n?=?19; 54%) reported one source of validity evidence.ConclusionsThis review highlights a gap in the testing and use of competence attribute measures related to evidence-informed decision making in community-based and long-term care settings. Further development of measures is needed conceptually and psychometrically, as most measures assess only a single competence attribute, and lack assessment and evidence of reliability and sources of established validity evidence.RegistrationPROSPERO #CRD42018088754.

Dataset Information

Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback.

Publications

Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets