scholarly journals Translating Science Into Practice and Making It Stick: System-Level Approaches

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 538-538
Author(s):  
Kim Curyto ◽  
Jennifer Sullivan ◽  
Laura Wray
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
System Level ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Implementing Change ◽  
Intervention Selection ◽  
Mapping Tool ◽  
Roll Out

Abstract The delay between establishing evidence-based practice and implementing this evidence base is well documented. This presentation will focus on the application of implementation science principles to real-world clinical programs. A VA priority is to implement evidence-based practice for management of DBD in CLCs. Key implementation science concepts will be introduced, along with a description of how these conceptual models facilitate application of roll-out and sustainment of complex evidence-based interventions. Conceptual frameworks that contributed to intervention selection and facilitation of STAR-VA implementation, including the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Knowledge Reservoirs (KR) framework, and their application in health care practice, will be discussed. The CFIR Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change (ERIC) Mapping Tool will be introduced as useful to identify strategies that address barriers to sustaining implementation. Attendees will be provided with resources to support implementation and sustainment efforts.

scholarly journals Enacting evidence-based practice: pathways for community nurses

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 370-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piotr Teodorowski ◽  
Clare Cable ◽  
Sally Kilburn ◽  
Catriona Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Process Of Change ◽  
Implementing Change ◽  
Managerial Support ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
Change In Practice ◽  
Practice Development

Community nurses are expected to deliver evidence-based practice, which is challenging given the diversity and breadth of the evidence base from which they can draw. This study aimed to explore community nurses' experiences of implementing change in their practice. Qualitative semi-structured interviews (n=9) and focus groups (n=2) with community nurses (n=17) were conducted. Three pathways to introduce change in practice were identified by participants: bottom-up, top-down and collaborative pathways. These are based on the nature of the proposed change, the available evidence, ‘buy in’ from colleagues and issues around implementation. The findings identify approaches to implementing change in community nursing practice. Practitioners would benefit from support to navigate the complex process of change through managerial support, ongoing education, accessible online resources and support through a practice development role.

Implementation Science: Application of Evidence‐Based Practice Models to Improve Healthcare Quality

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-84
Author(s):  
Sharon Tucker ◽  
Molly McNett ◽  
Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk ◽  
Kirsten Hanrahan ◽  
Sarah C. Hunter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Healthcare Quality ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Practice Models ◽  
Science Application

scholarly journals Evidence-based practice of stereotactic radiosurgery: Outcomes from an educational course for neurosurgery and radiation oncology residents

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Swathi Chidambaram ◽  
Sergio W. Guadix ◽  
John Kwon ◽  
Justin Tang ◽  
Amanda Rivera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Stereotactic Radiosurgery ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Comfort Level ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Senior Faculty ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Before And After

Background: As the field of brain and spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) continues to grow, so will the need for a comprehensive evidence base. However, it is unclear to what degree trainees feel properly equipped to use SRS. We assess the perceptions and comfort level reported by neurosurgery and radiation oncology residents concerning the evidence-based practice of SRS. Methods: A continuing medical education (CME) course provided peer-reviewed updates regarding treatment with intracranial and spinal SRS. Presentations were given by neurosurgery and radiation oncology residents with mentorship by senior faculty. To gauge perceptions regarding SRS, attendees were surveyed. Responses before and after the course were analyzed using the Fisher’s exact test in R statistical software. Results: Participants reported the greatest knowledge improvements concerning data registries (P < 0.001) and clinical trials (P = 0.026). About 82% of all (n = 17) radiation oncology and neurosurgery residents either agreed or strongly agreed that a brain and spine SRS rotation would be beneficial in their training. However, only 47% agreed or strongly agreed that one was currently part of their training. In addition, knowledge gains in SRS indications (P = 0.084) and ability to seek collaboration with colleagues (P = 0.084) showed notable trends. Conclusion: There are clear knowledge gaps shared by potential future practitioners of SRS. Specifically, knowledge regarding SRS data registries, indications, and clinical trials offer potential areas for increased educational focus. Furthermore, the gap between enthusiasm for increased SRS training and the current availability of such training at medical institutions must be addressed.

scholarly journals Implementation—The Missing Link in the Research Translation Pipeline: Is It Any Wonder No One Ever Implements Evidence-Based Practice?

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 751-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Lynch ◽  
Brigit M. Chesworth ◽  
Louise A. Connell
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Evaluation Research ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Research Translation ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Rehabilitation Research

Despite the exponential growth in the evidence base for stroke rehabilitation, there is still a paucity of knowledge about how to consistently and sustainably deliver evidence-based stroke rehabilitation therapies in clinical practice. This means that people with stroke will not consistently benefit from research breakthroughs, simply because clinicians do not always have the skills, authority, knowledge or resources to be able to translate the findings from a research trial and apply these in clinical practice. This “point of view” article by an interdisciplinary, international team illustrates the lack of available evidence to guide the translation of evidence to practice in rehabilitation, by presenting a comprehensive and systematic content analysis of articles that were published in 2016 in leading clinical stroke rehabilitation journals commonly read by clinicians. Our review confirms that only a small fraction (2.5%) of published stroke rehabilitation research in these journals evaluate the implementation of evidence-based interventions into health care practice. We argue that in order for stroke rehabilitation research to contribute to enhanced health and well-being of people with stroke, journals, funders, policy makers, researchers, clinicians, and professional associations alike need to actively support and promote (through funding, conducting, or disseminating) implementation and evaluation research.

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.

scholarly journals Revisions to the Common Rule: A proposal in search of evidence

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart G Nicholls
Keyword(s):  
Implementation Science ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
The Public ◽  
Regulatory Changes ◽  
The Common

Proposed changes to the Common Rule are proffered to save almost 7,000 reviews annually and consequently vast amounts of investigator and IRB-member time. However, the proposed changes have been subject to criticism. While some have lauded the changes as being imperfect, but nevertheless as improvements, others have contended that ‘neither the scientific community nor the public can be confident that improved practices will emerge from the regulatory changes mandated by the NPRM.’ In the present article, I discuss an important aspect that has been overlooked: the question of whether benefits will emerge is demonstrably empirical, yet data upon which to draw conclusions are conspicuous by their absence. This is thrown into sharp relief when we consider the current environment in which health research is increasingly focused on providing evidence of need or benefit, where there is greater emphasis on evidence-based practice, and when we have the nascent field of implementation science.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Educational Interventions to Increase Knowledge of Evidence-Based Practice Among Nurses and Physiotherapists in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review

10.2196/17621 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e17621
Author(s):  
Henk Verloo ◽  
Pauline Melly ◽  
Roger Hilfiker ◽  
Filipa Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

Background The implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) in daily health care practice is strongly encouraged; it is widely recognized as a means to improve the quality and safety of health care for patients and reduce avoidable costs. Primary care nurses and physiotherapists face numerous challenges in trying to ensure that they deliver effective daily care. Broadly promoted educational interventions aim to increase the integration and implementation of EBP in their daily practice. Objective This systematic review will retrieve and evaluate publications examining the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase the integration and implementation of EBP among nurses, nurse practitioners, and physiotherapists active in primary care. Methods We will conduct a systematic review of published articles in relevant professional, scientific journals (from their start dates) and in the following electronic databases, from inception until October 31, 2020: Medline Ovid SP (from 1946), PubMed (NOT Medline[sb]; from 1996), Embase.com (from 1947), CINAHL Ebesco (from 1937), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Wiley (from 1992), PsycINFO Ovid SP (from 1806), Web of Science Core collection (from 1900), PEDro (from 1999), the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports (from 1998), and the Trip Database (from 1997). We will use the predefined search terms of “evidence-based practice,” “nurses,” or “physiotherapists” and combinations with other terms, such as “educational interventions.” We will also conduct a hand search of the bibliographies of all the relevant articles and a search for unpublished studies using Google Scholar, the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses dissemination, Mednar, WorldCat, OpenGrey, and Grey Literature Report. We will consider publications in English, French, German, and Portuguese. Results The electronic database searches were completed in October 2020. Retrieved articles are currently being screened, and the entire study is expected to be completed by March 2021. Conclusions This systematic review will provide specific knowledge about the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase the implementation and integration of EBP in the daily practice of nurses and physiotherapists providing primary care services. Its findings will inform us about the types and frequencies of the most successful educational interventions. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42017077309; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=77309 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/17621

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document