Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28196539›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

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.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. 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. Review
  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

9 authors.

Paul M WilsonAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK. paul.wilson@manchester.ac.uk.
Kate FarleySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Liz BickerdikeCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Alison BoothYork Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK.
Duncan ChambersSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Mark LambertPublic Health England North East Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Carl ThompsonSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rhiannon TurnerSchool of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Ian S WattDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundThe Health and Social Care Act mandated research use as a core consideration of health service commissioning arrangements in England. We undertook a controlled before and after study to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improved the use of research evidence by commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives.

methodsNine Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the North of England received one of three interventions: (A) access to an evidence briefing service; (B) contact plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or (C) unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Data for the primary outcome measure were collected at baseline and 12 months using a survey instrument devised to assess an organisations' ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Documentary and observational evidence of the use of the outputs of the service were sought.

resultsOver the course of the study, the service addressed 24 topics raised by participating CCGs. At 12 months, the evidence briefing service was not associated with increases in CCG capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making, individual intentions to use research findings or perceptions of CCG relationships with researchers. Regardless of intervention received, participating CCGs indicated that they remained inconsistent in their research-seeking behaviours and in their capacity to acquire research. The informal nature of decision-making processes meant that there was little traceability of the use of evidence. Low baseline and follow-up response rates and missing data limit the reliability of the findings.

conclusionsAccess to a demand-led evidence briefing service did not improve the uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. Commissioners appear well intentioned but ad hoc users of research. Further research is required on the effects of interventions and strategies to build individual and organisational capacity to use research.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationControlled Before-After StudiesEnglandEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Services AdministrationHumansResearchState Medicine

Identifiers

PMID28196539
PMCPMC5310088

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.