Translating research into evidence-based practice in juvenile justice: brand-name programs, meta-analysis, and key issues

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon C. Welsh ◽  
Michael Rocque ◽  
Peter W. Greenwood
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Brand Name ◽  
Key Issues

Barriers to Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Physiotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Paci ◽  
Gianni Faedda ◽  
Alessandro Ugolini ◽  
Leonardo Pellicciari
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Organizational Issues ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Practice Implementation

Abstract Background To review and meta-analyse the evidence about the prevalence of barriers to evidence-based practice (EBP) reported in physiotherapy. Methods Two independent investigators conducted an extensive electronic search in EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases from their inception to July 2020 and included the retrieved articles if they investigated barriers to EBP among physiotherapy professionals. Subsequently, they extracted data and assessed the methodological quality using a scale described in a similar previous study. Outcome for meta-analysis was frequency of each reported barrier. Sub-analyses were performed grouping studies based on countries where surveys were performed, classified as either developed or developing countries. Results Twenty-nine articles were included in the systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Risk of bias assessment of included studies showed a median score: 4 points (interquartile range: 3-4). The findings of meta-analysis revealed that lack of time was the most frequently reported barrier (53.0% [95%CI 44.0-62.0]), followed by language (36.0% [95%CI 16.0-62.0]), lack of access (34.0% [95%CI 23.0.27]) and lack of statistical skills (31.0% [95%CI 20.0-44.0]). Lack of skills and lack of generalizability were declared as a barrier by 27.0% [95%CI 18.0-38.0] and 23.0% [95%CI 15.0-33.0] of responders, respectively. Lack of support and lack of interest are less frequent, with 16.0% [95%CI 11.0-24.0] and 9.0% [95%CI 6.0-15.0] of responses, respectively. Barriers reported in investigations performed in developed countries were less frequent when compared to those performed in developing countries. Conclusion Organizational issues and methodological skills seem key issues to allow the implementation of EBP, suggesting the need to adopt or enhance organizational and training strategies to facilitate the implementation of the EBP. Quantitative synthesis showed high heterogeneity for all analyses and, therefore, pooled data should be interpreted with caution.

Building the house of evaluation: Reconsidering the blueprints and bricks for knowledge accumulation in evaluation

Evaluation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Lemire ◽  
Christina A. Christie
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Knowledge Building ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The Public ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
What Works ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
Cumulative Knowledge

The push for evidence-based practice is persistent in the public sector—what counts is what works. One central premise for evidence-based practice is the existence of an evidence base; that is, an accumulated and generalizable body of knowledge. Informed by a recent systematic review, we examine the promises and pitfalls of meta-analysis (the statistical workhorse of systematic reviews) as the primary blueprint for cumulative knowledge building in evaluation. This analysis suggests that the statistical assumptions underlying the meta-analytic framework raise issues that, at least in regards to producing generalizable knowledge, may cut even deeper than is suggested by common criticisms. Advancing beyond meta-analysis, we consider alternative approaches for knowledge building and reflect on the implications of these for individual evaluations.

The effectiveness of leadership: meta-analysis of trial, cross-sectional, and before after studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
V Restivo ◽  
M Gaeta ◽  
A Odone ◽  
C Trucchi ◽  
A Battaglini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies ◽  
Private Setting

Abstract Background The clinical and surgical procedures are often based on scientifical evidence but 30-40% of patients do not receive treatment according to evidence based medicine. The main aim of this review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of leadership in healthcare setting. Methods It was conducted a literature research on MEDLINE, Pubmed and Scopus with publication year between 2015 and 2019. The inclusion criteria were studies involving healthcare workers that evaluated effectiveness of opinion leaders in improving behaviour of healthcare workers, according to clinical or patient related outcomes. The quality of studies were assesed with the NHLBI for before after studies and the NOS for other study designs. The effect of leadership was assessed as risk difference for all studies with the exception of cross sectional studies. For the last it was evaluated correlation between leadership level and outcome measurment. Results A total of 3,155 articles were screened and 284 were fully assessed including 22 of them in the final database: 1 randomized trial, 9 cross sectional and 12 before after studies. For the cross-sectional studies there was a correlation of 0.22 (95% CI 0.15-0.28) between leadership level and outcome measurment. In the metaregression analysis the only factor that increased the correlation was private setting (meta regression coefficent =0.52, p = 0.022). The pooled efficacy was 24% (95% CI 10%-17%) for before after studies. Furthermore, a higher effectiveness was revealed in studies conducted on multi professional (24%) than single professional (9%) healthcare workers. Conclusions According to results, the guidelines adherence and task performance increased in a setting with leadership implementation. The leadership effectiveness appears comparable to other strategies as audit and feedback used to implement evidence-based practice in worldwide healthcare. Key messages The translation of evidence into clinical practice is often difficult but this study suggests that leaderhip can had higher effectiveness in multiprofessional healthcare workers and private setting. The effectiveness of leadership in this review suggests that it can be of help in order to make aware healthcare professionals about effectiveness of comply with evidence-based practice.

Barriers to Psychologists’ Adherence to Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines for Treating Musculoskeletal Injuries Within the State Insurance Regulatory Authority Compensation Schemes

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tahira Haider ◽  
Debra A. Dunstan
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
The State ◽  
Musculoskeletal Injuries ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Text Data ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Key Issues

AbstractObjectives:The use of evidence-based practice (EBP) guidelines by psychologists working within the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) compensation schemes for treating musculoskeletal injuries has been found to vary. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore psychologists’ perceived barriers to adhering with EBP guidelines implemented by the New South Wales (NSW) SIRA.Methods:Registered psychologists (n= 20) working within the NSW SIRA compensation schemes participated in four focus groups conducted face-to-face (F2F) and online. Participants’ responses were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and entered into NVivo 11 software. Text data were analysed to identify recurrent themes within and across groups (metropolitan, regional and rural).Results:Thematic analysis revealed three key issues: (a) a lack of trust in the validity of the recommended EBP guidelines; (b) lack of knowledge of the psychologist’s role in this context and insufficient skills to fully apply the guidelines, protocols and procedures; and (c) a poor fit between EBP guidelines, client presentations and circumstances, and the SIRA compensation schemes.ConclusionThe findings showed that both individual practitioner variables and contextual barriers influenced adherence to EBP. Practical implications for future research include generating recommendations to overcome the identified barriers using a collaborative approach between policymakers, researchers and practitioners.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document