ArticleImplementation science : IS2017
Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback.
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 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of experiences and perceptions of key actors and organisations at multiple levels within health systems internationally in responding to COVID-19.Implementation science : IS · 2021Pooled it
- Digital smartphone intervention to recognise and manage early warning signs in schizophrenia to prevent relapse: the EMPOWER feasibility cluster RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Trial
- Integrating health economics and implementation science: a call to action.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators of risk-stratified follow-up care in lung cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Have changes in practice in response to COVID-19 been sustained? A qualitative study of experiences and perceptions of health system stakeholders in Colombia.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- [Critical factors for institutionalizing evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare organizationsFactores críticos para la institucionalización de la toma de decisiones basada en la evidencia en las organizaciones de salud].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- Improving accessibility to radiotherapy services in Cali, Colombia: cross-sectional equity analyses using open data and big data travel times from 2020.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Dynamic measurements of geographical accessibility considering traffic congestion using open data: a cross-sectional assessment for haemodialysis services in Cali, Colombia.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2024Article
- Cancer research in the United Arab Emirates from birth to present: A bibliometric analysis.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Defining a malaria diagnostic pathway from innovation to adoption: Stakeholder perspectives on data and evidence gaps.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- The relationship between organizational trust and voice behavior among neonatal intensive care unit nurses in tertiary A hospitals in Sichuan Province: the mediating role of career resilience.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- 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
- Attitudes, awareness, and perceptions of general public and pharmacists toward the extended community pharmacy services and drive-thru pharmacy services: a systematic review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Review
- EIDM training as a key intervention among researchers to enhance research uptake and policy engagement: an evaluation study.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- A systems thinking approach to understanding youth active recreation.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022Article
- Article
- Family-Assisted Severity of Illness Monitoring for Hospitalized Children in Low-Resource Settings-A Two-Arm Interventional Feasibility Study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Communication vs evidence: What hinders the outreach of science during an infodemic? A narrative review.Integrative medicine research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA range of evidence informs decision-making on innovation in health care, including formal research findings, local data and professional opinion. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of evidence for innovations into practice. In addition to the characteristics of evidence, it is known that processes at the individual level influence its impact on decision-making. Less is known about the ways in which processes at the professional, organisational and local system level shape evidence use and its role in decisions to adopt innovations.
methodsA systematic scoping review was used to review the health literature on innovations within acute and primary care and map processes at the professional, organisational and local system levels which influence how evidence informs decision-making on innovation. Stakeholder feedback on the themes identified was collected via focus groups to test and develop the findings.
resultsFollowing database and manual searches, 31 studies reporting primary qualitative data met the inclusion criteria: 24 were of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the thematic analysis. Evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by multi-level processes (professional, organisational, local system) and interactions across these levels. Preferences for evidence vary by professional group and health service setting. Organisations can shape professional behaviour by requiring particular forms of evidence to inform decision-making. Pan-regional organisations shape innovation decision-making at lower levels. Political processes at all levels shape the selection and use of evidence in decision-making.
conclusionsThe synthesis of results from primary qualitative studies found that evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by processes at multiple levels. Interactions between different levels shape evidence use in decision-making (e.g. professional groups and organisations can use local systems to validate evidence and legitimise innovations, while local systems can tailor or frame evidence to influence activity at lower levels). Organisational leaders need to consider whether the environment in which decisions are made values diverse evidence and stakeholder perspectives. Further qualitative research on decision-making practices that highlights how and why different types of evidence come to count during decisions, and tracks the political aspects of decisions about innovation, is needed.
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.