The impact of evidence based journal club on decision making capacity: a pilot study

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
JD Lakhani ◽  
A Muley ◽  
J Lodhari
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Journal Club ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals The challenge of bringing evidence in decision-making for public health emergencies: can preparedness reach out to HTA?

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C E Chronaki ◽  
A Miglietta
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Resource Planning ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Public Health Emergencies ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Abstract Evidence-based decision-making is central to public health. Implementing evidence-informed actions is most challenging during a public health emergency as in an epidemic, when time is limited, scientific uncertainties and political pressures tend to be high, and reliable data is typically lacking. The process of including data for preparedness and training for evidence-based decision making in public health emergencies is not systematic and is complicated by many barriers as the absence of common digital tools and approaches for resource planning and update of response plans. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is used with the aim to improve the quality and efficiency of public health interventions and to make healthcare systems more sustainable. Many of today's public health crises are also cross-border, and countries need to collaborate in a systematic and standardized way in order to enhance interoperability to share data and to plan coordinated response. Digital health tools have an important role to play in this setting, facilitating use of knowledge about the population that can potentially affected by the crisis within and across regional and national borders. To strengthen the impact of scientific evidence on decision-making for public health emergency preparedness and response, it is necessary to better define and align mechanisms through which interdisciplinary evidence feeds into decision-making processes during public health emergencies and the context in which these mechanisms operate. Activities and policy development in the HTA network could inform this process. The objective of this presentation is to identify barriers for evidence-based decision making during public health emergencies and discuss how standardization in digital health and HTA processes may help overcome these barriers leading to more effective coordinated and evidence-based public health emergency response.

scholarly journals Heuristics, biases and traps in managerial decision making

2013 ◽  
Vol 61 (7) ◽  
pp. 2117-2122
Author(s):  
Peter Gál ◽  
Miloš Mrva ◽  
Matej Meško
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Errors ◽  
Small Samples ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Managerial Decision ◽  
Initial Information ◽  
Representativeness Heuristic ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The World ◽  
The Impact

The aim of the paper is to demonstrate the impact of heuristics, biases and psychological traps on the decision making. Heuristics are unconscious routines people use to cope with the complexity inherent in most decision situations. They serve as mental shortcuts that help people to simplify and structure the information encountered in the world. These heuristics could be quite useful in some situations, while in others they can lead to severe and systematic errors, based on significant deviations from the fundamental principles of statistics, probability and sound judgment. This paper focuses on illustrating the existence of the anchoring, availability, and representativeness heuristics, originally described by Tversky & Kahneman in the early 1970’s. The anchoring heuristic is a tendency to focus on the initial information, estimate or perception (even random or irrelevant number) as a starting point. People tend to give disproportionate weight to the initial information they receive. The availability heuristic explains why highly imaginable or vivid information have a disproportionate effect on people’s decisions. The representativeness heuristic causes that people rely on highly specific scenarios, ignore base rates, draw conclusions based on small samples and neglect scope. Mentioned phenomena are illustrated and supported by evidence based on the statistical analysis of the results of a questionnaire.

scholarly journals Inviting a statistician to join an evidence-based journal club

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 397-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Swift ◽  
F. Crotty ◽  
M. Moran ◽  
C. M. McDonough ◽  
A. Moran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Active Learning ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Journal Club ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Academic Interest ◽  
Learning Principles ◽  
The Impact

AIMS AND METHODIn response to frequent cancellations, we recently changed the format of our journal club. We invited a statistician to attend and each meeting focused specifically on critical appraisal and statistical analysis. Active learning principles were used where every participant critically appraised an aspect of the paper presented at each meeting. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the impact of the new format on attendance and satisfaction levels. Attendance and satisfaction levels were measured in the 3 months before and the 3 months after the new format was introduced.RESULTSAverage attendance increased from 10 to 15, with two psychologists and two trainees who did not work in the hospital starting to attend regularly. Satisfaction levels also increased significantly with respect to academic interest, enjoyment, usefulness and overall satisfaction.CONCLUSIONCombining statistical expertise with principles of active learning has led to increased satisfaction levels among participants in our journal club.

The frequency of references to decision-making capacity in reports to the NSW Mental Health Review Tribunal did not change after legislative reforms that promoted them

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-174
Author(s):  
Tim Foley ◽  
Christopher J Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Education Campaign ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Legislative Reforms ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Health Review

Objective: To assess the impact of a 2015 reform to the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) ( MHA) that was interpreted as requiring a reference to decision-making capacity (DMC) in reports to the NSW Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). Method: A sample of reports to the MHRT were audited for references to the MHA’s treatment criteria and DMC in periods before and after the reforms, and the frequency of references between the two periods was compared. Results: The frequency of references to DMC did not change significantly after the reforms. (However, references to the ‘least restriction’ criterion increased markedly between the two periods). Conclusion: Despite legislative reforms and a supporting education campaign promoting the importance of consideration of DMC, references to DMC did not increase after the reforms.

Review of Key Stakeholders for an mHealth Pilot Study in Malawi Motivations and Expectations

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne O'Connor ◽  
Ciara Heavin ◽  
John O'Donoghue
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Pilot Studies ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Post Trial ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Potential Use

The trial and evaluation of mobile health (mHealth) applications in society is necessary to explore the potential use and benefits of the solution post-trial. In recent years, there is a proliferation of mHealth projects developed and tested in the continent of Africa. The complexity of these projects means that there are typically many stakeholders who are integral to the success of the project. Yet, extant research falls short of capturing the motivations and expectations of multiple key stakeholders (i.e. direct and indirect users) in a single study towards participating in mHealth pilots. To address this gap in research a conceptual model is proposed and examined to explore the impact of motivations and expectations on both community health workers' (direct users) and caregivers' (indirect users) decision to participate in mHealth pilot studies. Findings reveal that both motivations and expectations positively impact decision making, i.e. their decision to participate in the study, with no significant differences emerging between these two groups of stakeholders.

scholarly journals What is the evidence for the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being: a scoping review and evidence-based logic model to guide healthcare strategy decision making on the use of gardening approaches as a social prescription

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e036923 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Howarth ◽  
Alison Brettle ◽  
Michael Hardman ◽  
Michelle Maden
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Long Term Conditions ◽  
Logic Models ◽  
Health Strategy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Health And Well Being

ObjectiveTo systematically identify and describe studies that have evaluated the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. A secondary objective was to use this evidence to build evidence-based logic models to guide health strategy decision making about gardens and gardening as a non-medical, social prescription.DesignScoping review of the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. Gardens include private spaces and those open to the public or part of hospitals, care homes, hospices or third sector organisations.Data sourcesA range of biomedical and health management journals was searched including Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Web of Knowledge, ASSIA, Cochrane, Joanna Briggs, Greenfile, Environment Complete and a number of indicative websites were searched to locate context-specific data and grey literature. We searched from 1990 to November 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included research studies (including systematic reviews) that assessed the effect, value or impact of any garden that met the gardening definition.Data extraction and synthesisThree reviewers jointly screened 50 records by titles and abstracts to ensure calibration. Each record title was screened independently by 2 out of 3 members of the project team and each abstract was screened by 1 member of a team of 3. Random checks on abstract and full-text screening were conducted by a fourth member of the team and any discrepancies were resolved through double-checking and discussion.ResultsFrom the 8896 papers located, a total of 77* studies was included. Over 35 validated health, well-being and functional biometric outcome measures were reported. Interventions ranged from viewing gardens, taking part in gardening or undertaking therapeutic activities. The findings demonstrated links between gardens and improved mental well-being, increased physical activity and a reduction in social isolation enabling the development of 2 logic models.ConclusionsGardens and gardening can improve the health and well-being for people with a range of health and social needs. The benefits of gardens and gardening could be used as a ‘social prescription’ globally, for people with long-term conditions (LTCs). Our logic models provide an evidence-based illustration that can guide health strategy decision making about the referral of people with LTCs to socially prescribed, non-medical interventions involving gardens and gardening.

scholarly journals A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in Large-Scale Food Fortification Programs

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 1802-1802
Author(s):  
Valerie Friesen ◽  
Mduduzi Mbuya ◽  
Lynnette Neufeld ◽  
Frank T Weiringa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Program Design ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Food Fortification ◽  
Impact Pathway ◽  
Gates Foundation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Abstract Objectives The use of evidence on program performance and potential for impact for decision making in food fortification programs is limited and often done in isolation from other micronutrient interventions. We present a framework for fortification stakeholders responsible for making program recommendations and decisions to facilitate and document evidence-based decision making. Methods First, we reviewed the literature to define the key decision makers and decisions necessary for effective fortification program design and delivery, informed by a clear impact pathway. Then we classified decisions by domain, identified data sources and criteria for their assessment, and adapted the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to summarize the results. Finally, we considered how the framework would apply to different country programs to test its utility. Results Policymakers, particularly government ministries, and the food producers themselves are the most important decision makers in a fortification program, while technical support agencies, donor agencies, and the research community play important roles in translating data and evidence into contextualized recommendations that meet the needs of different decision makers. The main fortification decision types were classified into five domains across the impact pathway: 1) program design (need, food vehicle(s)); 2) program delivery (compliance, quality, coverage); 3) program impact (nutrient intake and status); 4) overlapping micronutrient interventions and/or under-served populations; and 5) decisions to continue or stop programs. Important criteria for the assessment of each decision type included priority, benefits/risks, equity, acceptability, and feasibility among others. Country examples illustrated the importance of coordinating decision-making in the context of overlapping micronutrient interventions to ensure continued safety and impact over time. Conclusions This framework is a practical tool to enable evidence-based decision making by fortification stakeholders. Using evidence in a systematic and transparent way can enable more effective program design, delivery, and ultimately health impacts. Funding Sources Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document