Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33706785›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2021

The decision sampling framework: a methodological approach to investigate evidence use in policy and programmatic innovation.

Thomas I Mackie, Ana J Schaefer, Justeen K Hyde, Laurel K Leslie, Emily A Bosk, Brittany Fishman, R Christopher Sheldrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Thomas I MackieDepartment of Health Behavior, Society, and Policy, Rutgers School of Public Health, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, NJ, USA. tim18@sph.rutgers.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6010-6304
Ana J SchaeferRutgers School of Public Health, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Justeen K HydeVA Center for HealthCare Organization and Implementation Research, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 East Concord St, Boston, MA, USA.
Laurel K LeslieAmerican Board of Pediatrics, 111 Silver Cedar Court, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Emily A BoskRutgers School of Social Work, 390 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Brittany FishmanRutgers School of Public Health, 683 Hoes Lane West, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
R Christopher SheldrickDepartment of Health Law, Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Boston University, One Silber Way, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCalls have been made for greater application of the decision sciences to investigate and improve use of research evidence in mental health policy and practice. This article proposes a novel method, "decision sampling," to improve the study of decision-making and research evidence use in policy and programmatic innovation. An illustrative case study applies the decision sampling framework to investigate the decisions made by mid-level administrators when developing system-wide interventions to identify and treat the trauma of children entering foster care.

methodsDecision sampling grounds qualitative inquiry in decision analysis to elicit information about the decision-making process. Our case study engaged mid-level managers in public sector agencies (n = 32) from 12 states, anchoring responses on a recent index decision regarding universal trauma screening for children entering foster care. Qualitative semi-structured interviews inquired on questions aligned with key components of decision analysis, systematically collecting information on the index decisions, choices considered, information synthesized, expertise accessed, and ultimately the values expressed when selecting among available alternatives.

resultsFindings resulted in identification of a case-specific decision set, gaps in available evidence across the decision set, and an understanding of the values that guided decision-making. Specifically, respondents described 14 inter-related decision points summarized in five domains for adoption of universal trauma screening protocols, including (1) reach of the screening protocol, (2) content of the screening tool, (3) threshold for referral, (4) resources for screening startup and sustainment, and (5) system capacity to respond to identified needs. Respondents engaged a continuum of information that ranged from anecdote to research evidence, synthesizing multiple types of knowledge with their expertise. Policy, clinical, and delivery system experts were consulted to help address gaps in available information, prioritize specific information, and assess "fit to context." The role of values was revealed as participants evaluated potential trade-offs and selected among policy alternatives.

conclusionsThe decision sampling framework is a novel methodological approach to investigate the decision-making process and ultimately aims to inform the development of future dissemination and implementation strategies by identifying the evidence gaps and values expressed by the decision-makers, themselves.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelPolicyChildHealth PolicyHumansPublic SectorQualitative ResearchResearch DesignDecision-makingDecision sciencesEvidenceFoster careHealth care policyMental health care policy

Identifiers

PMID33706785
PMCPMC7953669

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.