Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26707549›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based program for introduction of new health technologies and clinical practices in a local healthcare setting.

Claire Harris, Marie Garrubba, Kelly Allen, Richard King, Cate Kelly, Malar Thiagarajan, Beverley Castleman, Wayne Ramsey, Dina Farjou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Learning curves in minimally invasive esophagectomy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Claire HarrisSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. claire.harris@monash.edu.
Marie GarrubbaCentre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia. marie.garrubba@monashhealth.org.
Kelly AllenSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. kelly.allen@monash.edu.
Richard KingMedicine Program, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia. richard.king@monashhealth.org.
Cate KellyMedical Services, Alfred Health, Victoria, Australia. c.kelly@alfred.org.au.
Malar ThiagarajanLegal Office, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia. malar.thiagarajan@monashhealth.org.
Beverley CastlemanConsumer Representative, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia. bevcastleman@ozemail.com.au.
Wayne RamseyMedical Services and Quality, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia. wayne.p.ramsey@gmail.com.
Dina FarjouCentre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia. dfarjou@gmail.com.
Monash Health · AUAlfred Health · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper reports the process of establishing a transparent, accountable, evidence-based program for introduction of new technologies and clinical practices (TCPs) in a large Australian healthcare network. Many countries have robust evidence-based processes for assessment of new TCPs at national level. However many decisions are made by local health services where the resources and expertise to undertake health technology assessment (HTA) are limited and a lack of structure, process and transparency has been reported.

methodsAn evidence-based model for process change was used to establish the program. Evidence from research and local data, experience of health service staff and consumer perspectives were incorporated at each of four steps: identifying the need for change, developing a proposal, implementation and evaluation. Checklists assessing characteristics of success, factors for sustainability and barriers and enablers were applied and implementation strategies were based on these findings. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used for process and outcome evaluation. An action research approach underpinned ongoing refinement to systems, processes and resources.

resultsA Best Practice Guide developed from the literature and stakeholder consultation identified seven program components: Governance, Decision-Making, Application Process, Monitoring and Reporting, Resources, Administration, and Evaluation and Quality Improvement. The aims of transparency and accountability were achieved. The processes are explicit, decisions published, outcomes recorded and activities reported. The aim of ascertaining rigorous evidence-based information for decision-making was not achieved in all cases. Applicants proposing new TCPs provided the evidence from research literature and local data however the information was often incorrect or inadequate, overestimating benefits and underestimating costs. Due to these limitations the initial application process was replaced by an Expression of Interest from applicants followed by a rigorous HTA by independent in-house experts.

conclusionThe program is generalisable to most health care organisations. With one exception, the components would be achievable with minimal additional resources; the lack of skills and resources required for HTA will limit effective application in many settings. A toolkit containing details of the processes and sample materials is provided to facilitate replication or local adaptation by those wishing to establish a similar program.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationComparative Effectiveness ResearchCosts and Cost AnalysisDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based PracticeHealth ServicesHumansNeeds AssessmentTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalVictoria

Identifiers

PMID26707549
PMCPMC4692064
OpenAlexW2218599283

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.