ArticleFrontiers in health services2025
The ART of evidence-based care: proof of concept of a novel strategy to accelerate research translation in health organisations.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study evaluated a novel strategy to improve accessibility of implementation science to clinicians in a large health network. The strategy, called Accelerating Research Translation (ART), was based on an adaptation of the A3 problem-solving method developed for use in healthcare quality improvement. Method: An observational pre-post design was used to conduct a 'proof-of-concept' trial of the ART strategy. Clinicians who identified a gap between a clinical practice guideline and usual care were recruited as Project Leads to conduct research translation projects over a 6-month period, supported by a training programme involving a workshop series and mentor. The proportion of patients receiving guideline-consistent care for each project was measured pre- and post-intervention, and results across projects were combined in a planned pooled meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included changes in confidence in research translation for Project Leads and the degree of evidence of implementation, mapped against Meyer and Goes' stages of healthcare implementation. Results: Ten projects were completed by 13 Project Leads, involving a diverse range of professional disciplines, clinical specialties, and healthcare settings. Pooled analysis of data from 768 patients suggests the ART programme increased the odds of receiving evidence-based care (logOR 2.52, 95% CI: 0.93-4.11, Conclusion: This novel approach empowered clinicians to tackle evidence-practice gaps within a familiar structure already well-accepted and understood by health service providers. This concept provides a promising mechanism to demystify implementation science and address local evidence-practice gaps at scale.
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.