Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34565349›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Evidence-based practice in primary healthcare from the managerial point of view - a national survey.

Tobias Abelsson, Helena Morténius, Ann-Kristin Karlsson, Stefan Bergman, Amir Baigi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Tobias AbelssonDepartment of Research and Development, Region Halland, Region Halland, R&D, Box 517, 301 80, Halmstad, Sweden. tobias.abelsson@gu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8467-0738
Helena MorténiusPrimary Healthcare Unit, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ann-Kristin KarlssonDepartment of Research and Development, Region Halland, Region Halland, R&D, Box 517, 301 80, Halmstad, Sweden.
Stefan BergmanPrimary Healthcare Unit, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Amir BaigiDepartment of Research and Development, Region Halland, Region Halland, R&D, Box 517, 301 80, Halmstad, Sweden.

Funding

Region Halland Not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe vast availability of and demand for evidence in modern primary healthcare force clinical decisions to be made based on condensed evidence in the form of policies and guidelines. Primary healthcare managers play a key role in implementing these governing documents. Thus, the aim of this article is to investigate the use and availability of evidence-based practice resources from the perspective of first-line primary healthcare managers.

methodsThe study is based on a national survey of primary healthcare managers, consisting of 186 respondents, recruited nationally from Sweden. The data was analysed using empirically constructed concepts and validated using factor analysis. A chi-square test was utilized to determine the statistical significance of comparisons. Associations between variables were calculated using Spearman's correlation coefficients. All tests were two-sided, and the significance level was set to 0.05.

resultsA majority (97 %) of managers stated that guidelines and policy documents impacted primary healthcare; 84 % of managers observed a direct effect on daily practices. Most of the managers (70 %) stated that some adaptation was needed when new evidence was introduced. The managers emphasized the importance of keeping themselves updated and open to new information about work routines (96 %).

conclusionsThe study illustrates a nearly unanimous response about the influence of clinical evidence on daily practice. The emphasis on the importance of all staff members keeping their professional knowledge up to date is viewed as a direct result of this effect on daily practice. An information-dense organization such as a primary healthcare organization would have much to gain from increased cooperation with regional information resources such as clinical libraries.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticePrimary Health CareHumansSwedenDiffusion of innovationEvidence-based medicineEvidence-based practiceHealthcare managementInformation-seeking behaviourKnowledge managementPrimary healthcare

Identifiers

PMID34565349
PMCPMC8474930

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.