Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research 2014, 14:2 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-2ABSTRACT
Background: The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.Methods: Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population.
Results: 145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage.Conclusions: Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.
Kloek CJJ, Tol J, Veenhof C, van der Wulp I, Swinkels ICS. Dutch General Practitioners’ weight management policy for overweight and obese patients. BMC Obesity 2014, 1:2 doi:10.1186/2052-9538-1-2ABSTRACT
Background: General practitioners (GPs) can play an important role in both the prevention and management of overweight and obesity. Current general practice guidelines in the Netherlands allow room for GPs to execute their own weight management policy.
Objective: To examine GPs’ current weight management policy and the factors associated with this policy.Methods: 800 Dutch GPs were asked to complete a questionnaire in December 2012. The questionnaire items were based on the Dutch Obesity Standard for GPs. The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analyses in 2013.
Results: In total, 307 GPs (39.0%) responded. Most respondents (82.9%) considered weight management as part of their responsibility for providing care. GPs aged <48 25="" 47.7="" a="" average="" bmi="" comorbidities="" compared="" dietitian="" discussed="" frequent.="" frequently="" gps="" is="" kg="" less="" m="" management="" moderately="" next="" obese="" of="" on="" or="" overweight="" patients.="" patients="" preferably="" professional="" refer="" reported="" sup="" the="" to="" weight-related="" weight="" with="" without="" years="">248>were less likely to refer obese patients. In addition, GPs who had frequent contact with a dietitian were more likely to refer obese patients. Conclusions: In the context of General Practice and preventive medicine, GPs’ discussion of weight and the variety of obesity-determinants with their moderately overweight patients deserves more attention, especially from younger GPs. Strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration between GPs and dietitians could increase the referral percentage for dietary treatment.
McClymont H, Gow J, Perry C. The role of information search in seeking alternative treatment for back pain: a qualitative analysis. Chiropr Man Ther 2014, 22:16 doi:10.1186/2045-709X-22-16ABSTRACT
Background: Health consumers have moved away from a reliance on medical practitioner advice to more independent decision processes and so their information search processes have subsequently widened. This study examined how persons with back pain searched for alternative treatment types and service providers. That is, what information do they seek and how; what sources do they use and why; and by what means do they search for it?Methods: 12 persons with back pain were interviewed. The method used was convergent interviewing. This involved a series of semi-structured questions to obtain open-ended answers. The interviewer analysed the responses and refined the questions after each interview, to converge on the dominant factors influencing decisions about treatment patterns.
Results: Persons with back pain mainly search their memories and use word of mouth (their doctor and friends) for information about potential treatments and service providers. Their search is generally limited due to personal, provider-related and information-supply reasons. However, they did want in-depth information about the alternative treatments and providers in an attempt to establish apriori their efficacy in treating their specific back problems. They searched different sources depending on the type of information they required.Conclusions: The findings differ from previous studies about the types of information health consumers require when searching for information about alternative or mainstream healthcare services. The results have identified for the first time that limited information availability was only one of three categories of reasons identified about why persons with back pain do not search for more information particularly from external non-personal sources.