Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study

Authors: Paul M Wilson, Kate Farley, Carl Thompson, Duncan Chambers, Liz Bickerdike, Ian S Watt, Mark Lambert, Rhiannon Turner

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are mandated to use research evidence effectively to ensure optimum use of resources by the National Health Service (NHS), both in accelerating innovation and in stopping the use of less effective practices and models of service delivery. We intend to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence service improves uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives.

Methods/design

This is a controlled before and after study involving CCGs in the North of England. Participating CCGs will receive one of three interventions to support the use of research evidence in their decision-making: 1) consulting plus responsive push of tailored evidence; 2) consulting plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or 3) standard service unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Our primary outcome will be changed at 12 months from baseline of a CCGs ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Secondary outcomes will measure individual clinical leads and managers’ intentions to use research evidence in decision making. Documentary evidence of the use of the outputs of the service will be sought. A process evaluation will evaluate the nature and success of the interactions both within the sites and between commissioners and researchers delivering the service.

Discussion

The proposed research will generate new knowledge of direct relevance and value to the NHS. The findings will help to clarify which elements of the service are of value in promoting the use of research evidence. Those involved in NHS commissioning will be able to use the results to inform how best to build the infrastructure they need to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making and to fulfil their statutory duties under the Health and Social Care Act.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ham C. Health in a Cold Climate. London: The Nuffield Trust; 2009.
2.
Appleby J, Ham C, Imison C, Jennings M. Improving NHS Productivity. More with the Same Not More of the Same. UK: London King’s Fund; 2010.
3.
4.
Weatherly H, Drummond M, Smith D. Using evidence in the development of local health policies. Some evidence from the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18(4):771–81.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Clarke A, Taylor-Phillips S, Swan J, Gkeredakis E, Mills P, Powell J, et al. Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS: who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5):e002714.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Cohen W, Levinthal D. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin Sci Quart. 1990;35:128–52.CrossRef
7.
Lane P, Koka B, Pathak S. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Acad Manage Rev. 2006;31:833–63.CrossRef
8.
Hanbury A, Thompson C, Wilson PM, Farley K, Chambers D, Warren E, et al. Translating research into practice in Leeds and Bradford (TRiP-LaB): a protocol for a programme of research. Implement Sci. 2010;5:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Chambers D, Grant R, Warren E, Pearson S-A, Wilson P. Use of evidence from systematic reviews to inform commissioning decisions: a case study. Evid Policy. 2012;8:141–8.CrossRef
10.
11.
12.
Chambers D, Wilson P. A framework for production of systematic review based briefings to support evidence-informed decision-making. Syst Rev. 2012;9:1–32.
13.
Elliott H, Popay J. How are policy makers using evidence? Models of research utilisation and local NHS policy making. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54:461–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Lavis J, Robertson D, Woodside J, McLeod C, Abelson J. Knowledge Transfer Study Group. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81:221–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:239–44.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O'Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PloS One. 2011;6(7):e21704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Mitton C, Adair C, McKenzie E, Patten S, Waye Perry B. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85:729–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Turner R, Hewstone M, Voci A. Reducing explicit and implicit prejudice via direct and extended contact: the mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;93:369–88.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Pettigrew T, Tropp L. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006;90:751–83.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Gaertner S, Dovidio J, Anastasio P, Bachman B, Rust M. The common ingroup identity model: recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 1993;4:1–26.CrossRef
22.
Chambers D, Wilson P, Thompson C, Hanbury A, Farley K, Light K. Maximizing the impact of systematic reviews in healthcare decision-making: a systematic scoping review of knowledge translation resources. Milbank Q. 2011;89:131–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Is Research Working For You? A Self-Assessment Tool and Discussion Guide for Health Services Management and Policy Organizations. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF); 2008.
24.
Kothari A, Edwards N, Hamel N, Judd M. Is research working for you? Validating a tool to examine the capacity of health organizations to use research. Implement Sci. 2009;4:46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Oxman A, Vandvik P, Lavis J, Fretheim A, Lewin S. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 2: Improving how your organisation supports the use of research evidence to inform policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 Suppl 1:S2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Lavis J, Wilson M, Grimshaw J, Haynes R, Hanna S, Raina P, et al. Effects of an evidence service on health-system policy makers’ use of research evidence: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2011;6:51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Wilson MG, Lavis JN, Grimshaw JM, Haynes RB, Bekele T, Rourke SB. Effects of an evidence service on community-based AIDS service organizations’ use of research evidence: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2011;6:52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.CrossRef
29.
Hewstone M, Judd C, Sharp M. Do observer ratings validate self-reports of intergroup contact? A round-robin analysis. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2011;47:599–609.CrossRef
30.
Wright S, Aron A, McLaughlin-Volpe T, Ropp A. The extended contact effect: knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;73:73–90.CrossRef
31.
Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27 Suppl 3:S178–189.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess R, editors. Analysing Qualitative Data. London and New York: Routledge; 1994.
33.
Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. London: HM Treasury; 2006.
34.
Carruthers I. Innovation Health and Wealth: Accelerating Adoption and Diffusion in the NHS. London: Department of Health; 2011.
Metadata
Title
Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study
Authors
Paul M Wilson
Kate Farley
Carl Thompson
Duncan Chambers
Liz Bickerdike
Ian S Watt
Mark Lambert
Rhiannon Turner
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0199-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Debate

A modelling tool for policy analysis to support the design of efficient and effective policy responses for complex public health problems

Research

Perceived barriers to reporting adverse drug events in hospitals: a qualitative study using theoretical domains framework approach

Systematic review

The concept of mechanism from a realist approach: a scoping review to facilitate its operationalization in public health program evaluation

Research

A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project

Debate

Hiding in plain sight: communication theory in implementation science

Study protocol

Improving early infant HIV diagnosis in Kenya: study protocol of a cluster-randomized efficacy trial of the HITSystem