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:10.1186/1472-6963-14-2
ABSTRACT
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:10.1186/2052-9538-1-2
ABSTRACTBackground: 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.
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-22-16
ABSTRACT
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment