Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27044391›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2016

Study protocol: DEcisions in health Care to Introduce or Diffuse innovations using Evidence (DECIDE).

Simon Turner, Stephen Morris, Jessica Sheringham, Emma Hudson, Naomi J Fulop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Simon TurnerDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. simon.j.turner@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1801-8351
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Jessica SheringhamDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Emma HudsonDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Naomi J FulopDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5306-6140

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA range of evidence informs healthcare decision-making, from formal research findings to 'soft intelligence' or local data, as well as practical experience or tacit knowledge. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of such evidence into practice. Using a multi-level framework, this project will analyse how interactions between the evidence available and processes at the micro (individual/group) and meso (organisational/system) levels influence decisions to introduce or diffuse innovations in acute and primary care within the National Health Service in the UK. METHODS/

designThis study will use a mixed methods design, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, and involves four interdependent work streams: (1) rapid evidence synthesis of relevant literature with stakeholder feedback; (2) in-depth case studies of 'real-world' decision-making in acute and primary care; (3) a national survey and discrete choice experiment; and (4) development of guidance for decision-makers and evaluators to support the use of evidence in decision-making. DISCUSSION: This study will enhance the understanding of decision-makers' use of diverse forms of evidence. The findings will provide insights into how and why some evidence does inform decisions to introduce healthcare innovations, and why barriers persist in other cases. It will also quantify decision-makers' preferences, including the 'tipping point' of evidence needed to shift stakeholders' views. Practical guidance will be shared with healthcare decision-makers and evaluators on uses of evidence to enable the introduction and diffusion of innovation.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDiffusion of InnovationEvidence-Based MedicineTranslational Research, BiomedicalHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationNeoplasmsState MedicineStrokeSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomCancerDecision-makingDiscrete choice experimentEthnographyEvidenceInnovationOphthalmologyQualitativeService improvementStroke

Identifiers

PMID27044391
PMCPMC4820966

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.