Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29202772›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback.

Simon Turner, Danielle D'Lima, Emma Hudson, Stephen Morris, Jessica Sheringham, Nick Swart, Naomi J Fulop

Abstract readScoping Review
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 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. A systems thinking approach to understanding youth active recreation.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Simon TurnerCentre for Primary Care, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. s.turner@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1801-8351
Danielle D'LimaDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, UCL Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, UK.
Emma HudsonDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, UK.
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, UK.
Jessica SheringhamDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3468-129X
Nick SwartDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, UK.
Naomi J FulopDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5306-6140

Funding

National Institute for Health Research supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North Thames at Bart's Health NHS Trust.The Health Foundation 7604
6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingDiffusion of InnovationOrganizational InnovationDelivery of Health CareHumansDecision-makingEvidenceInnovationLocal systemsOrganisationsProfessionsQualitativeService improvement

Identifiers

PMID29202772
PMCPMC5715650

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.