Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23793669›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2013

Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS: who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011.

Aileen Clarke, Sian Taylor-Phillips, Jacky Swan, Emmanouil Gkeredakis, Penny Mills, John Powell, Davide Nicolini, Claudia Roginski, Harry Scarbrough, Amy Grove

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aileen ClarkeDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Sian Taylor-Phillips
Jacky Swan
Emmanouil Gkeredakis
Penny Mills
John Powell
Davide Nicolini
Claudia Roginski
Harry Scarbrough
Amy Grove
University of Warwick · GBSouth Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health 08/1808/244
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate types of evidence used by healthcare commissioners when making decisions and whether decisions were influenced by commissioners' experience, personal characteristics or role at work.

designCross-sectional survey of 345 National Health Service (NHS) staff members.

settingThe study was conducted across 11 English Primary Care Trusts between 2010 and 2011.

participantsA total of 440 staff involved in commissioning decisions and employed at NHS band 7 or above were invited to participate in the study. Of those, 345 (78%) completed all or a part of the survey.

main outcome measuresParticipants were asked to rate how important different sources of evidence (empirical or practical) were in a recent decision that had been made. Backwards stepwise logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the contributions of age, gender and professional background, as well as the years of experience in NHS commissioning, pay grade and work role.

resultsThe extent to which empirical evidence was used for commissioning decisions in the NHS varied according to the professional background. Only 50% of respondents stated that clinical guidelines and cost-effectiveness evidence were important for healthcare decisions. Respondents were more likely to report use of empirical evidence if they worked in Public Health in comparison to other departments (p<0.0005, commissioning and contracts OR   0.32, 95%CI   0.18 to 0.57, finance OR  0.19, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.78, other departments OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.71) or if they were female (OR 1.8 95% CI 1.01 to 3.1) rather than male. Respondents were more likely to report use of practical evidence if they were more senior within the organisation (pay grade 8b or higher OR 2.7, 95%CI 1.4 to 5.3, p=0.004 in comparison to lower pay grades).

conclusionsThose trained in Public Health appeared more likely to use external empirical evidence while those at higher pay scales were more likely to use practical evidence when making commissioning decisions. Clearly, National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance and government publications (eg, National Service Frameworks) are important for decision-making, but practical sources of evidence such as local intelligence, benchmarking data and expert advice are also influential. New Clinical Commissioning Groups will need a variety of different evidence sources and expert involvement to ensure that effective decisions are made for their populations.

Indexed as

Health Services Administration & ManagementPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID23793669
PMCPMC3657651
OpenAlexW2163047160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.