Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14583946›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Organisational infrastructures to promote evidence based nursing practice.

D R Foxcroft, N Cole

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. What Does the Cochrane Collaboration Say about Organization of Care?Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2011
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

D R FoxcroftSchool of Health and Social Care, Oxford Brookes University, 44 London Road, Oxford, UK, OX3 7PD.
N Cole

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this systematic review is to determine to what extent organisational infrastructures are effective in promoting the implementation of high quality research evidence on the effectiveness of nursing interventions.

objectivesTo identify and summarize rigorous evaluations of organisational infrastructure developments aimed at promoting evidence based nursing practice. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SIGLE, HEALTHLINE, National Research Register, Nuffield Database of Health Outcomes, NIH Databases up to August 2002. We hand searched the Journal of Advanced Nursing, Applied Nursing Research and Journal of Nursing Administration (to 1999), and checked the reference lists of articles obtained. We contacted experts in the field and relevant Internet groups. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted times series studies of an entire or identified component of an organisational infrastructure development aimed at promoting effective nursing interventions. The participants were health care organisations comprising nurses, midwives and health visitors in hospital and community settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All identified papers were screened independently for relevance, design and outcome by two reviewers. MAIN

resultsNo studies were sufficiently rigorous to be included in this systematic review. Seven case study evaluations were identified but excluded from the review because of poor design and lack of controls. REVIEWER'S

conclusions1. There are no clear implications for practice.2. Several conceptual models on organisational processes to promote evidence based practice have been described in published papers, and a number of organisational infrastructural interventions have been described in published papers. None have been evaluated properly. The next step in this field should be to conduct well planned evaluations of well planned interventions. 3. Interrupted and Complex Interrupted Times Series (ITS and CITS) designs should be adopted as a useful alternative to randomized controlled trials where such trials would be impractical. The health service cost of any infrastructure developments should be assessed in any evaluation. If possible, patient outcomes should be measured directly.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineEfficiency, OrganizationalNursing CareNursing ResearchOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.