Disseminating healthcare information: getting the message across

Marriott, Sarah; Palmer, Christina G.S.; Lelliott, Paul

doi:10.1136/qhc.9.1.58

Cited by 38 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was a positive finding to ascertain that generally, public health decision‐makers in Ontario indicate that they include research evidence in the decision‐making process for program planning purposes. Similar results have been reported by others with respect to incorporating research evidence into the policy development process (Champagne, 1999; Marriott et al 2000; Donaldson et al 2002; Lavis et al 2005). Recent work from the United Kingdom (Nutley et al 2002) also complements the findings of this study with respect to defining evidence‐based decision‐making.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Public Health Decision‐Makers' Informational Needs and Preferences for Receiving Research Evidence

Dobbins¹,

Jack²,

Thomas

et al. 2007

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

124

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although consensus exists among participants concerning the definition of evidence based public health decision-making, ongoing efforts are required to continue to promote the use of research evidence in program planning and public health policy. It is also important to continue to improve the ease with which public health decision-makers access systematic reviews, as well as to ensure the relevance and applicability of the results to the practice setting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Public Health Decision‐Makers' Informational Needs and Preferences for Receiving Research Evidence

Dobbins¹,

Jack²,

Thomas

et al. 2007

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

124

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Objectivity might have been questioned more for the prostate cancer prototype, first because the size of the harms section was larger than that of the benefits, but also because its content differed from what most participants already knew. The theory of cognitive consistency proposes that information which is compatible with existing beliefs is the most likely to be accepted, and that which emphasizes the undesirable qualities of existing beliefs may be selectively avoided or ignored [35]. Comments on the ‘Confidence in Results’ section reveal that participants’ trust in Decision Boxes was influenced by the quality of evidence presented within.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision boxes for clinicians to support evidence-based practice and shared decision making: the user experience

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis project engages patients and physicians in the development of Decision Boxes, short clinical topic summaries covering medical questions that have no single best answer. Decision Boxes aim to prepare the clinician to communicate the risks and benefits of the available options to the patient so they can make an informed decision together.MethodsSeven researchers (including four practicing family physicians) selected 10 clinical topics relevant to primary care practice through a Delphi survey. We then developed two one-page prototypes on two of these topics: prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen test, and prenatal screening for trisomy 21 with the serum integrated test. We presented the prototypes to purposeful samples of family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and patients distributed in four focus groups. We used the User Experience Honeycomb to explore barriers and facilitators to the communication design used in Decision Boxes. All discussions were transcribed, and three researchers proceeded to thematic content analysis of the transcriptions. The coding scheme was first developed from the Honeycomb’s seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible, and findable), and included new themes suggested by the data. Prototypes were modified in light of our findings.ResultsThree rounds were necessary for a majority of researchers to select 10 clinical topics. Fifteen physicians and 33 patients participated in the focus groups. Following analyses, three sections were added to the Decision Boxes: introduction, patient counseling, and references. The information was spread to two pages to try to make the Decision Boxes less busy and improve users’ first impression. To try to improve credibility, we gave more visibility to the research institutions involved in development. A statement on the boxes’ purpose and a flow chart representing the shared decision-making process were added with the intent of clarifying the tool’s purpose. Information about the risks and benefits according to risk levels was added to the Decision Boxes, to try to ease the adaptation of the information to individual patients.ConclusionResults will guide the development of the eight remaining Decision Boxes. A future study will evaluate the effect of Decision Boxes on the integration of evidence-based and shared decision making principles in clinical practice.

show abstract

“…HA users and support persons preferred that HCPs inform them of the study either face-to-face or through visual or written materials in clinical waiting rooms. q-COACH therefore provides valuable insight into the important features of information sources including the perceived credibility with, and proximity to, the target stakeholder groups, the level of clarity and brevity of the content, and the appropriate channel for each target audience [49]. As Marriot et al [49] remind us, effective information dissemination involves multiple stakeholders being approached through various means, each receiving tailored information for their task and information needs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the recruitment, ethical considerations, conduct and information dissemination of an audiology trial: a pretrial qualitative study (q-COACH)

Francis-Auton

Warren

Braithwaite

et al. 2020

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while still considered the gold standard approach in medical research, can encounter impediments to their successful conduct and the dissemination of results. Pretrial qualitative research can usefully address some of these impediments, including recruitment and retention, ethical conduct, and preferred methods of dissemination. However, pretrial qualitative work is rarely undertaken in audiology. The Comparison of outcomes with hearing aids and cochlear implants in adults with moderately severeto-profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (COACH) is a proposed RCT aiming to clarify when hearing aids (HAs) or cochlear implants (CIs) are the most suitable for different degrees of hearing loss and for which kinds of patients. q-COACH is a pretrial, qualitative study examining stakeholders' experiences of HAs and CIs, current clinical practices and stakeholders' perspectives of the design, conduct and dissemination plans for the proposed COACH study. Methods: Twenty-four participants including general practitioners, audiologists, adult HA users, and adult support networks undertook either semi-structured individual or paired interviews and completed demographic questionnaires. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Four key themes arose from this study: 1) rethinking sampling and recruitment strategies, 2) ethical considerations, 3) refining trial conduct, and 4) interconnected, appropriate and accessible methods of results dissemination. Conclusions: This qualitative investigation identified key considerations for the proposed RCT design, conduct and dissemination to help with successful implementation of COACH, and to indicate a plan of action at all RCT stages that would be acceptable to potential participants. By drawing on the perspectives of multiple key stakeholders and including a more general discussion of their experience and opinions of hearing loss, hearing device use and service availability, the study revealed experiential and ethical paradigms in which stakeholders operate. In so doing, q-COACH has exposed the benefits of preliminary qualitative investigations that enable detailed and rich understandings of the phenomenon at stake, forestalling problems and improving the quality of trial design, conduct and dissemination, while informing future RCT development discussions.

show abstract

Disseminating healthcare information: getting the message across

Cited by 38 publications

References 21 publications

Public Health Decision‐Makers' Informational Needs and Preferences for Receiving Research Evidence

Public Health Decision‐Makers' Informational Needs and Preferences for Receiving Research Evidence

Decision boxes for clinicians to support evidence-based practice and shared decision making: the user experience

Exploring the recruitment, ethical considerations, conduct and information dissemination of an audiology trial: a pretrial qualitative study (q-COACH)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About