Introduction to Evidence-Based Decision Making in a Public Workers’ Compensation Agency

Reul, Nicholas K.

doi:10.1016/j.pmr.2015.04.010

Cited by 2 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Having a low educational level (1 empirical study [75])11 20. Having research experience and skills (4 reviews [16, 17, 29, 52], 7 empirical studies [33, 41, 45, 66, 67, 75, 76])77511324 21. Skills in seeking, appraising and interpreting systematic reviews and adapting to contextual needs (5 reviews [14, 16, 17, 32, 53], 9 empirical studies [38, 39, 42, 45, 47, 54, 56, 68, 73])849131315MANAGEMENT OF RESEARCH INTEGRATION Performance management 22.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Skills in seeking, appraising and interpreting systematic reviews and adapting to contextual needs (5 reviews [14, 16, 17, 32, 53], 9 empirical studies [38, 39, 42, 45, 47, 54, 56, 68, 73])849131315MANAGEMENT OF RESEARCH INTEGRATION Performance management 22. Availability and organisation of internal staff, which coordinate and respond to specific demands for research to inform a policy (1 review [53], 8 empirical studies [27, 30, 61, 64, 67, 74, 76, 77])76512325 23. Continuity and stability of employment for high level leadership and staff (2 reviews [29, 48], 2 empirical studies [30, 45])4114111 24.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Technical support to access research findings (1 empirical study [39])111111 Inter-organisational communication and collaboration 36. External partnerships and communication channels (5 reviews [12, 29, 48, 52, 53], 9 empirical studies [39, 44, 56, 58–60, 76–78])981511423810 37. Government and academia collaborative research (1 review [53], 5 empirical studies [56, 58, 60, 74, 77])245734 Intra-organisational communication, learning networks and collaboration teams 38.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data collection systems for research, monitoring and evaluation (2 review [14, 52], 2 empirical studies [10, 59, 79])3435322 43. Methods for collecting and generating research to inform policy (1 review [16], 1 empirical study [76])11INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES AND RULES FOR POLICY-MAKING Political environment 44. Establishing platforms for engaging all stakeholders across sectors in policy discussions and where research evidence is discussed (2 reviews [52, 53], 2 empirical studies [59, 60])2244223 45.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Establishing platforms for engaging all stakeholders across sectors in policy discussions and where research evidence is discussed (2 reviews [52, 53], 2 empirical studies [59, 60])2244223 45. Funding and commissioning of research (5 reviews [14, 16, 29, 32, 53], 9 empirical studies [30, 58–61, 64, 69, 73, 76])57713433 46. Open and transparent policy-making process that creates opportunities for public input (1 review [48], 4 empirical studies [46, 59, 65, 76])4225122 47.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making: a scoping review

Jakobsen

Karlsson

Skovgaard

et al. 2019

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAlthough important syntheses and theoretical works exist in relation to understanding the organisational factors that facilitate research use, these contributions differ in their scope and object of study as well as their theoretical underpinnings. Therefore, from an exploratory angle, it may be useful to map out the current literature on organisational factors of research use in public health policy-making when revisiting existing theories and frameworks to gain further theoretical insights.MethodsHerein, a scoping review technique and thematic content analysis were used to bring together findings from both synthesised and empirical studies of different types to map out the organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making.ResultsA total of 14 reviews and 40 empirical studies were included in the analysis. These were thematically coded and the intra-organisational factors reported as enabling research use were examined. Five main categories of organisational factors that advance research use in policy organisations – (1) individual factors, (2) the management of research integration, (3) organisational systems and infrastructures of research use, (4) institutional structures and rules for policy-making, and (5) organisational characteristics – were derived as well as 18 subcategories and a total of 64 specific factors, where 27 factors were well supported by research.ConclusionsUsing a scoping review methodology, the intra-organisational factors influencing research use in policy-making (including individual factors) were systematically mapped and the theories applied in this area of research were assessed. The review findings confirm the importance of an intra-organisational perspective when exploring research use, showing that many organisational factors are critical facilitators of research use but also that many factors and mechanisms are understudied. The synthesis shows a lack of studies on politicians and the need for more theoretically founded research. Despite increased efforts to update the existing evidential and theoretical basis of research use, we still need frameworks that combine different approaches and theories to help us grasp the complex organisational mechanisms that facilitate research use in policy settings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making: a scoping review

Jakobsen

Karlsson

Skovgaard

et al. 2019

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Utilization Review in Workers’ Compensation

Bean¹,

Erdil²,

Blink³

et al. 2020

Journal of Occupational &Amp; Environmental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Utilization review (UR) is a process that assesses aspects of a treating provider's care plans and then provides recommendations to payors/insurance carriers, third party administrators, etc, concerning the appropriateness of the proposed care. UR has become an integral part of medical practice and has influenced medical care within the workers’ compensation (WC) system and is mandated in several states and jurisdictions. This guidance statement from the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) reviews structural elements of UR programs and proposes a possible template for operational standards. UR has a unique role in protecting patients and educating providers on evidence-based guidelines, new research, and best practices.

show abstract

Introduction to Evidence-Based Decision Making in a Public Workers’ Compensation Agency

Cited by 2 publications

References 13 publications

Organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making: a scoping review

Organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making: a scoping review

Utilization Review in Workers’ Compensation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About