Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29862494›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2018

Overcoming Challenges to Evidence-Based Policy Development in a Large, Integrated Delivery System.

Austin B Frakt, Julia C Prentice, Steven D Pizer, A Rani Elwy, Melissa M Garrido, Amy M Kilbourne, David Atkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2018. 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer: the THRIVE Center.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Grading Evidence to Support Legislative and Budget Proposals-Veterans Health Administration's Key to Implementing the Evidence Act.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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

7 authors.

Austin B FraktPEPReC, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-0795-5462
Julia C PrenticeCAPER, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0002-1515-768X
Steven D PizerDepartment of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0003-4908-5976
A Rani ElwyCHOIR, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0001-7088-3118
Melissa M GarridoJames J Peters (Bronx) VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-8986-3536
Amy M KilbourneQUERI, Veterans Health Administration, Ann Arbor, MI.ORCID 0000-0001-5815-6401
David AtkinsHSR&D, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC.ORCID 0000-0003-0640-3356

Funding

Impact of Mental Illness on Veterans' Palliative Care Access and OutcomesIK2HX000767 · VA · JAMES J PETERS VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI GARRIDO, MELISSA M · 2014 to 2015
–
HSRD VA IK2 HX000767
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe a new Veterans Health Administration (VHA) program to foster the learning health system paradigm by rigorously evaluating health care initiatives and to report key lessons learned in designing those evaluations. PRINCIPAL

findingsThe VHA's Quality Enhancement Research Initiative and its Health Services Research and Development Service are cooperating on several large, randomized program evaluations aimed at improving the care veterans receive and the efficiency with which it is delivered. The evaluations we describe involve collaborative design, outcomes assessment, and implementation science through partnerships between VHA operations and researchers. We review key factors to assess before committing to an evaluation. In addition to traditional design issues (such as ensuring adequate power and availability of data), these include others that are easily overlooked: the stability of intervention financing, means of controlling and commitment to adhering to randomized roll-out, degree of buy-in from key implementation staff, and feasibility of managing multiple veto points for interventions that span several programs, among others.

conclusionsSuccessful program implementation and rigorous evaluation require resources, specialized expertise, and careful planning. If the learning health system model is to be sustained, organizations will need dedicated programs to prioritize resources and continuously adapt evaluation designs.

Indexed as

Policy MakingDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHealth Services ResearchHumansOrganizational InnovationProgram EvaluationUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsVeteransVeterans HealthEvaluation design and researchhealth care organizations and systemsrandomized program evaluationVA health care system

Identifiers

PMID29862494
PMCPMC6232400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.