Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25572116›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

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.

Paul M Wilson, Kate Farley, Carl Thompson, Duncan Chambers, Liz Bickerdike, Ian S Watt, Mark Lambert, Rhiannon Turner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Paul M WilsonManchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, M15 6 PB, UK. paul.wilson@mbs.ac.uk.
Kate FarleyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. katherine.farley@york.ac.uk.
Carl ThompsonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. carl.thompson@york.ac.uk.
Duncan ChambersSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK. d.chambers@sheffield.ac.uk.
Liz BickerdikeCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. liz.bickerdike@york.ac.uk.
Ian S WattDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. ian.watt@york.ac.uk.
Mark LambertPublic Heath England North East Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE15 8NY, UK. mark.lambert2@nhs.net.
Rhiannon TurnerSchool of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK. r.turner@qub.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health 12/5002/18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are mandated to use research evidence effectively to ensure optimum use of resources by the National Health Service (NHS), both in accelerating innovation and in stopping the use of less effective practices and models of service delivery. We intend to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence service improves uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. METHODS/

designThis is a controlled before and after study involving CCGs in the North of England. Participating CCGs will receive one of three interventions to support the use of research evidence in their decision-making: 1) consulting plus responsive push of tailored evidence; 2) consulting plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or 3) standard service unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Our primary outcome will be changed at 12 months from baseline of a CCGs ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Secondary outcomes will measure individual clinical leads and managers' intentions to use research evidence in decision making. Documentary evidence of the use of the outputs of the service will be sought. A process evaluation will evaluate the nature and success of the interactions both within the sites and between commissioners and researchers delivering the service. DISCUSSION: The proposed research will generate new knowledge of direct relevance and value to the NHS. The findings will help to clarify which elements of the service are of value in promoting the use of research evidence. Those involved in NHS commissioning will be able to use the results to inform how best to build the infrastructure they need to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making and to fulfil their statutory duties under the Health and Social Care Act.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationControlled Before-After StudiesEvidence-Based MedicineHumansState MedicineTranslational Research, BiomedicalUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25572116
PMCPMC4296534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.