scholarly journals Classifying scientific evidence as the basis for evidence-based decision making: is strength of evidence absolute?

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyal Rosen ◽  
Igor Tsesis
2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Bradt

AbstractEvidence is defined as data on which a judgment or conclusion may be based. In the early 1990s, medical clinicians pioneered evidence-based decision-making. The discipline emerged as the use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine required the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available, external clinical evidence from systematic research and the patient's unique values and circumstances. In this context, evidence acquired a hierarchy of strength based upon the method of data acquisition.Subsequently, evidence-based decision-making expanded throughout the allied health field. In public health, and particularly for populations in crisis, three major data-gathering tools now dominate: (1) rapid health assessments; (2) population based surveys; and (3) disease surveillance. Unfortunately, the strength of evidence obtained by these tools is not easily measured by the grading scales of evidence-based medicine. This is complicated by the many purposes for which evidence can be applied in public health—strategic decision-making, program implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Different applications have different requirements for strength of evidence as well as different time frames for decision-making. Given the challenges of integrating data from multiple sources that are collected by different methods, public health experts have defined best available evidence as the use of all available sources used to provide relevant inputs for decision-making.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tahereh Shafaghat ◽  
Peivand Bastani ◽  
Mohammad Hasan Imani Nasab ◽  
Mohammad Amin Bahrami ◽  
Zahra Kavosi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Scientific evidence is the basis for improving public health; decision-making without sufficient attention to evidence may lead to unpleasant consequences. In recent years, efforts have been made to create more comprehensive guidelines for evidence-based decision-making (EBDM), thus the purpose of the present study was developing a framework for EBDM to make the best decisions concerning to scare resources and too many needs. Methods: The present basic-applied research was a secondary study carried out using qualitative research method in 2019. A Systematic Scoping Review (SSR) was done for the comprehensive review of the existing published studies in this area. This method, according to Arksey and O’Malley approach, consists of five main stages and one optional stage. Results: Based on the SSR, 3751 studies from 7 databases were found, and due to the full-text screening of the studies, 30 final studies were selected for extracting the components and steps of EBDM in Health System Management (HSM). After collecting, synthesizing, and categorizing key information, the framework of EBDM in HSM is developed in the form of four general scopes of inquiring, inspecting, implementing and integrating, which includes 10 main steps and 56 sub-steps. Conclusions: The present framework tries to present a sequential systematic map to achieve evidence-based decision and policy making specially for under developed and developing countries which mostly suffer from applying update and applied evidences in their decision-making process. At the same time, it seems that the present framework tries to synthesize and integrate the fragmented elements of the other models and in this way can be tested by developed countries to improve their EBDM cycle.


2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 720-724
Author(s):  
Liwei Zhang ◽  
Kelin Chen ◽  
Ji Zhao

This article aims to argue that evidence-based decision-making for a public health emergency is “easier said than done” reflected on COVID-19 response in China. For the local government, the behavioral pattern is prone to blame-avoiding instead of making decision following scientific evidence and experts’ advice. However, such behavior is not based on completely subjective judgment but a rational choice for the local government. Some consequences associated with China’s response to COVID-19 reveals an inflexible administrative system. Therefore, China’s governance reform should focus on empowering local governments with more flexibility and resilience, which enables local governments to make independent and scientific decisions in an emergency.


2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 790-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iván Arribas ◽  
Irene Comeig ◽  
Amparo Urbano ◽  
José Vila

2020 ◽  
pp. 204138662098341
Author(s):  
Marvin Neumann ◽  
A. Susan M. Niessen ◽  
Rob R. Meijer

In personnel- and educational selection, a substantial gap exists between research and practice, since evidence-based assessment instruments and decision-making procedures are underutilized. We provide an overview of studies that investigated interventions to encourage the use of evidence-based assessment methods, or factors related to their use. The most promising studies were grounded in self-determination theory. Training and autonomy in the design of evidence-based assessment methods were positively related to their use, while negative stakeholder perceptions decreased practitioners’ intentions to use evidence-based assessment methods. Use of evidence-based decision-making procedures was positively related to access to such procedures, information to use it, and autonomy over the procedure, but negatively related to receiving outcome feedback. A review of the professional selection literature showed that the implementation of evidence-based assessment was hardly discussed. We conclude with an agenda for future research on encouraging evidence-based assessment practice.


2009 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. S12-S17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon G. Liu ◽  
Takashi Fukuda ◽  
Chien Earn Lee ◽  
Vivian Chen ◽  
Qiang Zheng ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. S186
Author(s):  
R. Kumar ◽  
C. Suharlim ◽  
A. Amaris Caruso ◽  
C. Gilmartin ◽  
M. Mehra ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document