ArticleBMJ open2013
Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS: who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- The contribution of benchmarking to quality improvement in healthcare. A systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Using population risk prediction for healthcare planning: a qualitative study of healthcare planners' experiences and views.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Assessing the impact of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission in German schools on decision-making processes: a multi-component qualitative analysis.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- The usage of data in NHS primary care commissioning: a realist evaluation.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- The usage of data in NHS primary care commissioning: a realist review.BMC medicine · 2023Review
- The impact of COVID-19 on electronic repeat dispensing (eRD) in general practice.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Article
- Researching Healthcare Availability for Probation Clients: An Illustration of Methodological Challenges and Lessons in Surveying Organisations.British journal of community justice : BJCJ · 2019Article
- Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- The use of evidence in English local public health decision-making: a systematic scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Does access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improve uptake and use of research evidence by health service commissioners? A controlled before and after study.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Study protocol: DEcisions in health Care to Introduce or Diffuse innovations using Evidence (DECIDE).Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
- Making the case for a fracture liaison service: a qualitative study of the experiences of clinicians and service managers.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2015Article
- Mandatory implementation of NICE Guidelines for the care of bipolar disorder and other conditions in England and Wales.BMC medicine · 2015Article
- Evidence based policy making and the 'art' of commissioning - how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in 'real life' decision-making: an empirical qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.