Does access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improve uptake and use of research evidence by health service commissioners? A controlled before and after study

Wilson, Paul; Farley, Kate; Bickerdike, Liz; Booth, Alison L.; Chambers, Duncan; Lambert, Mark; Thompson, Carl; Turner, Rhiannon; Watt, Ian

doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0545-4

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Paying consultants to synthesise evidence appears to be relatively common amongst our sample, but this may not be the case elsewhere (although some government agencies internationally have trialled or implemented into routine practice the establishment of partnerships with researchers that include evidence review/briefing services, e.g. [35, 53, 54]). Our findings show that access to consultants was a unique predictor of the number and types of research accessed, the extent to which evidence was appraised for relevance and quality and interactions with researchers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This accords with a body of research which suggests that access to evidence alone is not sufficient to increase the use of research in policy. For example, Wilson et al concluded that receiving on-demand access to an evidence briefing service amongst six NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups in England [35] did not result in significantly increased intentions to use research evidence in their work, while Van Egmond’s depiction of the multifaceted, carefully constructed system the Centre VTV has developed in order to produce policy-relevant evidence for the Dutch government suggests that the process of providing useable evidence to policy may extend far beyond simply synthesising the available evidence [54].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where the level of engagement is sufficient, research use may then occur. A necessary condition for effective research engagement and use is a reservoir of relevant and reliable research; however, it should be noted that in many instances, such a reservoir is not available [34, 35].

Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How was research engaged with and used in the development of 131 policy documents? Findings and measurement implications from a mixed methods study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Much has been written about the use of evidence in policy; however, there is still little known about whether and how research is engaged with and used in policy development or the impact of reported barriers and facilitators. This paper aims to (1) describe the characteristics of 131 policy documents, (2) describe the ways in which research was engaged with (e.g. was searched for, appraised or generated) and used (e.g. to clarify understanding, persuade others or inform a policy) in the development of these policy documents, and (3) identify the most commonly reported barriers and facilitators and describe their association with research engagement and use. Methods Six health policy and program development agencies based in Sydney, Australia, contributed four recently finalised policy documents for consideration over six measurement periods. Structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with the policymakers most heavily involved in developing each of the 131 policy documents. Interviews covered whether and how research was engaged with and used in the development of the policy product and any barriers or facilitators related to this. Interviews were scored using the empirically validated SAGE tool and thematically analysed. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all key variables and comparisons made between agencies. Multiple regression analyses were used to estimate the impact of specific barriers and facilitators on research engagement and use. Results Our data shows large variations between policy agencies in the types of policy documents produced and the characteristics of these documents. Nevertheless, research engagement and use was generally moderate across agencies. A number of barriers and facilitators to research use were identified. No barriers were significantly associated with any aspects of research engagement or use. Access to consultants and relationships with researchers were both associated with increased research engagement but not use. Thus, access to consultants and relationships with researchers may increase the extent and quality of the evidence considered in policy development. Conclusions Our findings suggest that those wishing to develop interventions and programs designed to improve the use of evidence in policy agencies might usefully target increasing access to consultants and relationships with researchers in order to increase the extent and quality of the research considered, but that a greater consideration of context might be required to develop strategies to increase evidence use. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0886-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How was research engaged with and used in the development of 131 policy documents? Findings and measurement implications from a mixed methods study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We repeated the search in July 2018 using combination of index terms from the retrieved articles and reviews to identify new or updated research in MEDLINE ® , Google Scholar, and Scopus ® . 10,[38][39][40][41][42][43]…”

Section: Needs Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tableau is preferred for high-dimensional reports, allowing for reporting across categories and comparing effectiveness of interventions using customized visualization formats. [40][41][42]…”

Section: Dissemination Product Two: Tableaumentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Access to and Usability of Systematic Review Data for Health Systems Guidelines Development

Totten¹,

Smith²,

Dunham³

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We identified two functionalities existing software could address: o Ability to drill down from summaries to increasing levels of detail. o Ability to slice and dice the data into subgroups corresponding to specific interests. • To use such tools, the EPCs will need staff with informatics skills, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality will need to verify Web strategies for public access. • Alternate formats may improve utility of EPC report data to guideline committees in learning health systems. • The recommended pilot extension could confirm usefulness of prototypes and resources needed. iii This report is based on research conducted by the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2015-00009-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report. The information in this report is intended to help healthcare decision makers-patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others-make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of healthcare services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients. This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This report may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the report. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the express permission of copyright holders. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies may not be stated or implied.

show abstract

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Anderson

Howarth

Vainre

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is consensus that health services commissioning and clinical practice should be driven by scientific evidence. However, workload pressures, accessibility of peer reviewed publications and skills to find, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence are often cited as barriers to uptake of research evidence by practitioners and commissioners alike. In recent years a growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis to inform commissioning decisions about healthcare service delivery and provision of care contributed to an increasing popularity of scoping literature reviews (SLRs). Yet, comprehensive guidelines for conducting and reporting SLRs are still relatively scarce. Methods The exemplar review used as a worked example aimed to provide a readily available, comprehensive, and user-friendly repository of research evidence for local commissioners to help them make evidence-informed decisions about redesigning East of England Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In conducting the review, we were broadly guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, however some modifications were made at different stages to better reflect the largely pragmatic objective of this review. This paper compares the methodology used with existing methodological frameworks for scoping studies, to add to the existing knowledge base. Results We proposed the following advancements to the existing SLR frameworks: (i) Assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise; (ii); Draw on expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice; (iii) Pre-register the review protocol. Keep a detailed record of all steps and decisions and consider how they would impact on generalisability and utility of review findings; (iv) Use systematic procedures for literature searchers, selection of studies, data extraction and analysis; (v) If feasible, appraise the quality of included evidence; (vi) Be transparent about limitations of findings. Conclusions Despite some methodological limitations, scoping literature reviews are a useful method of rapidly synthesising a large body of evidence to inform commissioning and transformation of CAMHS. SLRs allow researchers to start with a broader questions, to explore the issue from different perspectives and perhaps find more comprehensive solutions that are not only effective, but also accounted for their feasibility and acceptability to key stakeholders.

show abstract

Does access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improve uptake and use of research evidence by health service commissioners? A controlled before and after study

Cited by 13 publications

References 40 publications

How was research engaged with and used in the development of 131 policy documents? Findings and measurement implications from a mixed methods study

How was research engaged with and used in the development of 131 policy documents? Findings and measurement implications from a mixed methods study

Improving Access to and Usability of Systematic Review Data for Health Systems Guidelines Development

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About