Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage. RESULTS: Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.

Frontline nurse leaders' competences in evidence-based healthcare: A scoping review.

AIM: To identify evidence on frontline nurse leaders' competences in evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) and the instruments measuring these competences. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted in June 2021 and complemented in June 2022. The CINAHL, ProQuest, Medline (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science databases and MedNar along with the Finnish database Medic were searched. REVIEW METHOD: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs institute methodology for scoping reviews. Titles, abstracts and full-text versions were screened independently by two reviewers according to the inclusion criteria. Deductive-inductive content analysis was used to synthesize data. RESULTS: A total of 3211 articles published between 1997 and 2022 were screened, which resulted in the inclusion of 16 articles. Although frontline nurse leaders had a positive attitude towards EBHC, they had a lack of implementing EBHC competence into practice. Part of the instruments were used in the studies, and only one focused especially on leaders. None of instruments systematically covered all segments of EBHC. CONCLUSION: There is a limited understanding of frontline nurse leaders' competence in EBHC. It is important to understand the importance of EBHC in healthcare and invest in the development of its competence at all levels of leaders. Frontline nurse leaders' support is essential for direct care nurses to use EBHC to ensure the quality of care and benefits to patients. Leaders must enhance their own EBHC competence to become role models for direct care nurses. It is also essential to develop valid and reliable instruments to measure leaders' competence covering all EBHC segments. The results can be utilized in the assessment and development of frontline nurse leaders' EBHC competence by planning and producing education and other competence development methods.

Evidence-based healthcare competence of social- and healthcare educators: A cross-sectional study.

AIM: The purpose of the study was to describe social and healthcare educators' evidence-based healthcare competence and explore the associated factors. DESIGN: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was carried out. METHODS: The research spanned 5 universities, 19 universities of applied sciences, and 10 vocational colleges in Finland from September to December 2022. Social and healthcare educators (n = 256), of which 21 worked at universities, 176 worked at universities of applied sciences, and 49 worked at vocational colleges. Data collection employed a self-assessed instrument that was designed to measure evidence-based healthcare competence based on the JBI Model of Evidence-based Healthcare. Competence profiles were formed using K-cluster grouping analysis. RESULTS: The educators' self-evaluations of their level of evidence-based healthcare competence were generally at a satisfactory level, with subsequent analyses identifying four distinct profiles of evidence-based healthcare competence. The profiles demonstrated statistically significant differences in terms of evidence synthesis and evidence transfer competencies. The factors associated with evidence-based healthcare competence included level of education, the year in which a professional had obtained their highest degree, current organization of employment, and participation in continuing education. CONCLUSIONS: Educators require various types of support for developing high levels of evidence-based healthcare competence. The identification of distinct competence profiles can be pivotal to providing educators with training that is tailored to their exact needs to provide an individualized learning path. WHAT PROBLEM DID THE STUDY ADDRESS?: Educators value the role of evidence in teaching, which reinforces the need to integrate aspects of the JBI Model of evidence-based healthcare into educators' competencies. Aspects of the JBI Model of evidence-based healthcare have not been holistically measured, with only certain components of the model considered separately. Educators need to better understand the global healthcare environment so they can identify research gaps and subsequently develop healthcare systems through their educational role. Higher academic education, work experience, organizational support, and continuous education play essential roles in the development of educators' evidence-based healthcare competence. WHAT WERE THE MAIN FINDINGS?: Educators generally have high levels of competence in evidence-based healthcare. Educators have mastered the different components of the JBI model of evidence-based healthcare but need to improve in areas such as the transfer and implementation of evidence. WHERE AND ON WHOM WILL THE RESEARCH HAVE AN IMPACT?: Determining evidence-based healthcare competence profiles for educators can be used to provide individualized learning paths for the development of evidence-based healthcare competence. Educators need to further develop their competence in evidence-based healthcare to ensure successful implementation and high-quality education in the future. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Development of an instrument to measure the competencies of health professionals in the process of evidence-based healthcare: A Delphi study.

AIMS: To identify and reach consensus on dimensions and criteria of a competence assessment instrument for health professionals in relation to the process of evidence-based healthcare. DESIGN: A two-round Delphi survey was carried out from April to June 2023. METHODS: Consensus was sought from an expert panel on the instrument preliminarily established based on the JBI Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare and a rapid review of systematic reviews of relevant literature. The level of consensus was reflected by the concentration and coordination of experts' opinions and percentage of agreement. The instrument was revised significantly based on the combination of data analysis, the experts' comments and research group discussions. RESULTS: Sixteen national and three international experts were involved in the first-round Delphi survey and 17 experts participated in the second-round survey. In both rounds, full consensus was reached on the four dimensions of the instrument, namely evidence-generation, evidence-synthesis, evidence-transfer and evidence-implementation. In round-one, the instrument was revised from 77 to 61 items. In round-two, the instrument was further revised to have 57 items under the four dimensions in the final version. CONCLUSION: The Delphi survey achieved consensus on the instrument. The validity and reliability of the instrument needs to be tested in future research internationally. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Systematic assessment of nurses and other health professionals' competencies in different phases of evidence-based healthcare process based on this instrument provides implications for their professional development and multidisciplinary team collaboration in evidence-based practice and better care process and outcomes. IMPACT: This study addresses a research gap of lacking an instrument to systematically assess interprofessional competencies in relation to the process of EBHC. The instrument covers the four phases of EBHC process with minimal criteria, highlighting essential aspects of ability to be developed. Identification of health professionals' level of competence in these aspects helps strengthen their capacity accordingly so as to promote virtuous EBHC ecosystem for the ending purpose of improving global healthcare outcomes. REPORTING METHOD: This study was reported in line with the Conducting and REporting of DElphi studies (CREDES) guidance on Delphi studies. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Trends in publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terminology (2013-2022).

AIMS: This article explored the publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terminology to determine usage and discuss options for low usage terms. BACKGROUND: A plethora of terms describe the scholarship of evidence-based healthcare. Several terms are synonyms, creating redundancy and confusion. The abundance and overlap of terms may impede the discovery of evidence. DESIGN: This discursive article explored and discussed publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terms. METHODS: Evidence-based healthcare terms were identified, and their 10-year (2013-2022) publication impact was assessed in the CINAHL and Medline databases. A card sort method was also used to identify terms with low usage. RESULTS: A total of 18/32 terms were included in the review. The terms evidence-based practice, quality improvement, research and translational research were the most highly published terms. Publication data were presented yearly over a 10-year period. Most terms increased in publication use over time, except for three terms whose use decreased. Several terms related to translational research have multiple synonyms. It remains unknown whether these terms are interchangeable and possibly redundant, or if there are nuanced differences between terms. CONCLUSION: We suggest a follow-up review in 3-5 years to identify publication trends to assess context and terms with continued low publication usage. Terms with persistent low usage should be considered for retirement in the reporting of scholarly activities. Additionally, terms with increasing publication trends should be treated as emerging terms that contribute to evidence-based healthcare terminology. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Confusion about the use of appropriate terminology may hinder progress in the scholarship of evidence-based healthcare. We encourage scholars to be aware of publication impact as it relates to the use of specific terminology and be purposeful in the selection of terms used in scholarly projects and publications.

Advanced practice nurses' evidence-based healthcare competence and associated factors: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) enables consistent and effective healthcare that prioritises patient safety. The competencies of advanced practice nurses (APNs) are essential for implementing EBHC because their professional duties include promoting EBHC. AIM: To identify, critically appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence concerning the EBHC competence of APNs and associated factors. DESIGN: A systematic review. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Medic, ProQuest, and MedNar. METHODS: Databases were searched for studies (until 19 September 2023) that examined the EBHC competence and associated factors of APNs were included. Quantitative studies published in English, Swedish and Finnish were included. We followed the JBI methodology for systematic review and performed a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The review included 12 quantitative studies, using 15 different instruments, and involved 3163 participants. The quality of the studies was fair. The APNs' EBHC competence areas were categorised into five segments according to the JBI EBHC model. The strongest areas of competencies were in global health as a goal, transferring and implementing evidence, while the weakest were generating and synthesising evidence. Evidence on factors influencing APNs' EBHC competencies was contradictory, but higher levels of education and the presence of an organisational research council may be positively associated with APNs' EBHC competencies. CONCLUSION: The development of EBHC competencies for APNs should prioritise evidence generation and synthesis. Elevating the education level of APNs and establishing a Research Council within the organisation can potentially enhance the EBHC competence of APNs. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: We should consider weaknesses in EBHC competence when developing education and practical exercises for APNs. This approach will promote the development of APNs' EBHC competence and EBHC implementation in nursing practice. REGISTRATION, AND REPORTING CHECKLIST: The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021226578), and reporting followed the PRISMA checklist. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None.

Association between clinic-level quality of care and patient-level outcomes in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) quality of care guidelines are consensus-based. The effectiveness of the recommendations is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether clinic-level quality of care affects clinical and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: This nationwide observational cohort study included patients with adult-onset MS in the Swedish MS registry with disease onset 2005-2015. Clinic-level quality of care was measured by four indicators: visit density, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) density, mean time to commencement of disease-modifying therapy, and data completeness. Outcomes were Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and patient-reported symptoms measured by the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29). Analyses were adjusted for individual patient characteristics and disease-modifying therapy exposure. RESULTS: In relapsing MS, all quality indicators benefitted EDSS and physical symptoms. Faster treatment, frequent visits, and higher data completeness benefitted psychological symptoms. After controlling for all indicators and individual treatment exposures, faster treatment remained independently associated with lower EDSS (-0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.01, -0.10) and more frequent visits were associated with milder physical symptoms (MSIS-29 physical score: -16.2%, 95% CI: -1.8%, -29.5%). Clinic-level quality of care did not affect any outcomes in progressive-onset disease. CONCLUSION: Certain quality of care indicators correlated to disability and patient-reported outcomes in relapse-onset but not progressive-onset disease. Future guidelines should consider recommendations specific to disease course.

Instruments for assessing healthcare professionals' knowledge and skills of evidence-based practice: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to describe the instruments used to assess the knowledge and skills of evidence-based practice (EBP) in healthcare settings. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken. Three electronic databases (CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane) were searched in January 2022. The search phrases consisted of the following terms: healthcare professionals, EBP, competence and instrument and their synonyms, keywords and MeSH terms. The database search was run without any limitations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to support reporting. RESULTS: Ultimately, 39 studies were included; most of them (35) were cross-sectional studies. The studies were conducted in 17 countries. A total of 17 evidence-based knowledge and skills instruments were identified. The Upton and Upton instrument was used in 19 studies. Twelve self-reported instruments were used only once. The psychometric properties of the instruments varied. The reliability was typically reported with Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The content of the EBP knowledge/skills instruments consists of five main categories: EBP, evaluation of current practice, preparation for the implementation of EBP, implementation of evidence and active participation in the development of EBP. CONCLUSION: Almost all instruments are self-assessment instruments. Validated knowledge tests should be further developed. The instruments emphasise the preparation for the implementation of EBP. Further research is needed to develop instruments for healthcare professionals to assess the knowledge and skills of the implementation of evidence.

A knowledge implementation model in health system management based on the PARIHS model.

BACKGROUND: The gap between knowledge and practice, along with postponing or not implementing research findings in practice and policy-making, is one of the reasons for low-quality services. Hence, this study aimed at presenting a model of knowledge implementation in health system management in Iran. METHODS: The present two-phase study was first performed qualitatively using a directive content analysis approach based on the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) model. The researchers extracted the barriers and facilitators by conducting semi-structured individual interviews. Then, in a three-stage Delphi study, 25 health experts determined the barrier removal strategies. Data were analysed using MAXQDA10 software. RESULTS:  The content analysis of the interviews led to the emergence of 1212 codes under three categories of evidence, context and facilitation. The findings indicate that health managers make fewer decisions based on research findings. Instead, they make decisions regarding the experiences of service providers and organization data. In addition to the subcategories in the PARIHS model, the researchers extracted political, social and administrative factors under the context category. The relationships between the features of evidence, context, facilitation, barriers and strategies were presented in the final model. CONCLUSION:  The presented model comprehensively emphasizes the evidence resources, context preparation, and facilitation of the knowledge implementation process.

Factors facilitating clinical application of and adherence to evidence-based healthcare among medical professionals attending national competitions in Taiwan: a study based on the decomposed theory of planned behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) to improve the quality of patient care is a key issue for physicians and nurses. One of the most effective activities for achieving this is the annual topic-oriented clinical application national competition in Taiwan. Hundreds of clinical issues have been presented in this competition. By using the decomposed theory of planned behaviour (DTPB), this study explored physicians' and nurses' behaviour and adherence to the clinical application of EBHC after participating in the competitions. METHODS: We conducted a 3-month cross-sectional online survey using a structured questionnaire adapted from the original study of the DTPB to collect behavioural and intention-related data. We also used a model of seven action stages (from aware of to adhered to) to assess target behaviours. We targeted contestants of the EBHC competitions between 1999 and 2017 as study participants. Of 631 teams, 321 teams completed the questionnaire, representing a 49.5% response rate. We applied structural equation modelling to test model fit. Moreover, we executed multivariate logistic regression to identify potential predictors. RESULTS: Of the respondents, 33.3% reportedly reached the final adhered to stage. The DTPB model exhibited a good fit to the observed data. All constructs (usefulness, compatibility, peer influence, superior influence, self-efficacy, resource facilitating conditions, attitude, subjective norms, behavioural control, and intentions) were positively associated with the target behaviours, except for ease of use and technology facilitating conditions. Furthermore, the study model explained the variance in the target behaviours (37.0%). Having managerial duties (odds ratio [OR] =2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.10-3.77), resource facilitating conditions (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.01-1.11), behavioural control (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.47-3.32), and intentions (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.40-2.73) were significant predictors of the achievement of the adhered to stage. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated the association between determinants of behaviour and clinical applications and factors influencing adherence to EBHC among competition participants. The adherence rate was not high after the competitions, and this may be improved by promoting certain factors associated with the target behaviours.

Quality assurance of integrative big data for medical research within a multihospital system.

BACKGROUND: The need is growing to create medical big data based on the electronic health records collected from different hospitals. Errors for sure occur and how to correct them should be explored. METHODS: Electronic health records of 9,197,817 patients and 53,081,148 visits, totaling about 500 million records for 2006-2016, were transmitted from eight hospitals into an integrated database. We randomly selected 10% of patients, accumulated the primary keys for their tabulated data, and compared the key numbers in the transmitted data with those of the raw data. Errors were identified based on statistical testing and clinical reasoning. RESULTS: Data were recorded in 1573 tables. Among these, 58 (3.7%) had different key numbers, with the maximum of 16.34/1000. Statistical differences (P < 0.05) were found in 34 (58.6%), of which 15 were caused by changes in diagnostic codes, wrong accounts, or modified orders. For the rest, the differences were related to accumulation of hospital visits over time. In the remaining 24 tables (41.4%) without significant differences, three were revised because of incorrect computer programming or wrong accounts. For the rest, the programming was correct and absolute differences were negligible. The applicability was confirmed using the data of 2,730,883 patients and 15,647,468 patient-visits transmitted during 2017-2018, in which 10 (3.5%) tables were corrected. CONCLUSION: Significant magnitude of inconsistent data does exist during the transmission of big data from diverse sources. Systematic validation is essential. Comparing the number of data tabulated using the primary keys allow us to rapidly identify and correct these scattered errors.

Effects of Computerised Clinical Decision Support on Adherence to VTE Prophylaxis Clinical Practice Guidelines among Hospitalised Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important patient safety concern. VTE leads to significant mortality and morbidity and a burden on healthcare resources. Despite the widespread availability of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on VTE prophylaxis, we found that only 50.9% of our patients were receiving appropriate prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of automation of an adapted VTE prophylaxis CPG using a clinical decision support system (the VTE-CDSS) on VTE prevention among hospitalised adult patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: A quasi-experimental study (pre- and post-implementation) was conducted at a large 900-bed tertiary teaching multi-specialty hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. PARTICIPANTS: The 1809 adult patients in the study included 871 enrolled during the pre-implementation stage and 938 enrolled during the post-implementation stage. INTERVENTION: Multi-faceted implementation interventions were utilised, including leadership engagement and support, quality and clinical champions, staff training and education and regular audit and feedback. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Two rate-based process measures were calculated for each admission cohort (i.e. pre- and post-implementation): the percentage of inpatients who were assessed for VTE risk on admission and the percentage of inpatients who received appropriate VTE prophylaxis. Two outcome measures were calculated: the prevalence of hospital-acquired VTE (HA-VTE) events and the in-hospital all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The percentage of inpatients risk assessed for VTE on admission increased from 77.4% to 93.3% (P < 0.01). The percentage of patients who received appropriate VTE prophylaxis increased from 50.9% to 81.4% (P < 0.01). The HA-VTE events decreased by 50% from 0.33% to 0.15% (P < 0.01).All-cause in-hospital mortality did not significantly change after implementation of the VTE-CDSS compared with pre-implementation mortality (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The VTE-CDSS improved patient safety by enhancing adherence to the VTE prophylaxis best practice and adapted CPG. The multi-faceted implementation strategies approach improved the compliance rate of risk assessment and the adherence to prophylaxis recommendations and substantially reduced the HA-VTE prevalence. A successful CDSS requires a set of critical components to ensure better user compliance and positive patient outcomes.

Preventing foot ulceration in diabetes: systematic review and meta-analyses of RCT data.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Foot ulceration is a serious complication for people with diabetes that results in high levels of morbidity for individuals and significant costs for health and social care systems. Nineteen systematic reviews of preventative interventions have been published, but none provides a reliable numerical summary of treatment effects. The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence from RCTs and, where possible, conduct meta-analyses to make the best possible use of the currently available data. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of preventative interventions for foot ulceration. OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to February 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to October 2018. RCTs of interventions to prevent foot ulcers in people with diabetes who were free from foot ulceration at trial entry were included. Two independent reviewers read the full-text articles and extracted data. The quality of trial reporting was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome of foot ulceration was summarised using pooled relative risks in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-two RCTs of eight interventions were eligible for analysis. One trial of digital silicone devices (RR 0.07 [95% CI 0.01, 0.55]) and meta-analyses of dermal infrared thermometry (RR 0.41 [95% CI 0.19, 0.86]), complex interventions (RR 0.59 [95% CI 0.38, 0.90], and custom-made footwear and offloading insoles (RR 0.53 [95% CI 0.33, 0.85]) showed beneficial effects for these interventions. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Four interventions were identified as being effective in preventing foot ulcers in people with diabetes, but uncertainty remains about what works and who is most likely to benefit.

What types of real-world evidence studies do U.S. commercial health plans cite in their specialty drug coverage decisions?

PURPOSE: To examine the RWE U.S. commercial health plans cite in their specialty drug coverage decisions. METHODS: We used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage Database to identify specialty drug coverage decisions (n = 7267) issued by 17 large commercial health plans. We categorized the clinical evidence plans cited in these coverage decisions (n = 5227) as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RWE studies, and other clinical studies (studies other than RCT or RWE study). We categorized RWE studies with respect to study type, for example, case series, studies based on medical records, and so on. We compared the frequency that plans cited different categories of RWE, cited RWE for different diseases, and cited RWE for drugs on the market for different time periods. RESULTS: RWE comprised 16% of cited clinical studies. Health plans cited RWE with different frequencies (5%-31% of the cited clinical evidence). Overall, plans cited RWE categorized as medical records most often (26% of cited RWE studies). Plans varied in the frequency they cited different RWE categories. Plans most frequently cited RWE for gastroenterological diseases (35% of clinical study citations) and least frequently for respiratory diseases (11% of clinical study citations). Plans cited RWE more for drugs that have long been on the market. CONCLUSIONS: Health plans varied with respect to the number and types of RWE studies they cited in their specialty drug coverage decisions. Plans cited RWE more often for some diseases than others, and cited more RWE for older drugs.

Uncovering the processes of knowledge transformation: the example of local evidence-informed policy-making in United Kingdom healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare policy-makers are expected to develop 'evidence-based' policies. Yet, studies have consistently shown that, like clinical practitioners, they need to combine many varied kinds of evidence and information derived from divergent sources. Working in the complex environment of healthcare decision-making, they have to rely on forms of (practical, contextual) knowledge quite different from that produced by researchers. It is therefore important to understand how and why they transform research-based evidence into the knowledge they ultimately use. METHODS: We purposively selected four healthcare-commissioning organisations working with external agencies that provided research-based evidence to assist with commissioning; we interviewed a total of 52 people involved in that work. This entailed 92 interviews in total, each lasting 20-60 minutes, including 47 with policy-making commissioners, 36 with staff of external agencies, and 9 with freelance specialists, lay representatives and local-authority professionals. We observed 25 meetings (14 within the commissioning organisations) and reviewed relevant documents. We analysed the data thematically using a constant comparison method with a coding framework and developed structured summaries consisting of 20-50 pages for each case-study site. We iteratively discussed and refined emerging findings, including cross-case analyses, in regular research team meetings with facilitated analysis. Further details of the study and other results have been described elsewhere. RESULTS: The commissioners' role was to assess the available care provision options, develop justifiable arguments for the preferred alternatives, and navigate them through a tortuous decision-making system with often-conflicting internal and external opinion. In a multi-transactional environment characterised by interactive, pressurised, under-determined decisions, this required repeated, contested sensemaking through negotiation of many sources of evidence. Commissioners therefore had to subject research-based knowledge to multiple 'knowledge behaviours'/manipulations as they repeatedly re-interpreted and recrafted the available evidence while carrying out their many roles. Two key 'incorporative processes' underpinned these activities, namely contextualisation of evidence and engagement of stakeholders. We describe five Active Channels of Knowledge Transformation - Interpersonal Relationships, People Placement, Product Deployment, Copy, Adapt and Paste, and Governance and Procedure - that provided the organisational spaces and the mechanisms for commissioners to constantly reshape research-based knowledge while incorporating it into the eventual policies that configured local health services. CONCLUSIONS: Our new insights into the ways in which policy-makers and practitioners inevitably transform research-based knowledge, rather than simply translate it, could foster more realistic and productive expectations for the conduct and evaluation of research-informed healthcare provision.

Iterative Decision-making for Evaluation of Adaptations (IDEA): A decision tree for balancing adaptation, fidelity, and intervention impact.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are frequently adapted to maximize outcomes while maintaining fidelity to core EBP elements. Many step-by-step frameworks for adapting EBPs have been developed, but these models may not account for common complexities in the adaptation process. In this paper, we introduce the Iterative Decision-making for Evaluation of Adaptations (IDEA), a tool to guide adaptations that addresses these issues. FRAMEWORK DESIGN AND USE: Adapting EBPs requires attending to key contingencies incorporated into the IDEA, including: the need for adaptations; fidelity to core EBP elements; the timeframe in which to make adaptations; the potential to collect pilot data; key clinical and implementation outcomes; and stakeholder viewpoints. We use two examples to illustrate application of the IDEA. CONCLUSIONS: The IDEA is a practical tool to guide EBP adaptation that incorporates important decision points and the dynamism of ongoing adaptation. Its use may help implementation scientists, clinicians, and administrators maximize EBP impact.

Nurse-identified patient care and health services research priorities in the United Arab Emirates: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The need for improved research on ill health has been recognized internationally and locally in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE Nursing and Midwifery Council recently committed to enhancing the status and contributions of nursing in healthcare research across the UAE by establishing a National Committee for Research Development. This study using a Delphi method to identify research priorities from the perspective of nurses delivering frontline healthcare. METHODS: A two-phase Delphi design was implemented with 1032 nurses participating in phase one of the study and 1339 in phase two. RESULTS: The most important priority was patient safety and healthcare professionals' awareness of international patient safety goals (including staffing levels and shift length) and potential effects on patient safety. Other important priorities were infection control practices and management of communicable diseases. CONCLUSIONS: These priorities may inform nursing research programs to improve patient care and health outcomes in the UAE and similar contexts worldwide.

What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have been considered as the pillar on which evidence-based healthcare rests. Systematic review methodology has evolved and been modified over the years to accommodate the range of questions that may arise in the health and medical sciences. This paper explores a concept still rarely considered by novice authors and in the literature: determining the type of systematic review to undertake based on a research question or priority. RESULTS: Within the framework of the evidence-based healthcare paradigm, defining the question and type of systematic review to conduct is a pivotal first step that will guide the rest of the process and has the potential to impact on other aspects of the evidence-based healthcare cycle (evidence generation, transfer and implementation). It is something that novice reviewers (and others not familiar with the range of review types available) need to take account of but frequently overlook. Our aim is to provide a typology of review types and describe key elements that need to be addressed during question development for each type. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review types.

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.

BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. RESULTS: Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. CONCLUSIONS: Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

Comparing and improving chronic illness primary care in Sweden and the USA.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to identify opportunities for improving primary care services for people with chronic illnesses by comparing how Sweden and US services use evidence-based practices (EBPs), including digital health technologies (DHTs). Design/methodology/approach - A national primary healthcare center (PHCC) heads surveys in 2012-2013 carried out in both countries in 2006. Findings - There are large variations between the two countries. The largest, regarding effective DHT use in primary care centers, were that few Swedish primary healthcare compared to US heads reported having reminders or prompts at the point of care (38 percent Sweden vs 84 percent USA), despite Sweden's established electronic medical records (EMR). Swedish heads also reported 30 percent fewer centers receiving laboratory results (67 percent Sweden vs 97 percent USA). Regarding following other EBPs, 70 percent of Swedish center heads reported their physicians had easy access to diabetic patient lists compared to 14 percent in the USA. Most Swedish PHCC heads (96 percent) said they offered same day appointment compared to 36 percent in equivalent US practices. Practical implications - There are opportunities for improvement based on significant differences in effective practices between the countries, which demonstrates to primary care leaders that their peers elsewhere potentially provide better care for people with chronic illnesses. Some improvements are under primary care center control and can be made quickly. There is evidence that people with chronic illnesses in these two countries are suffering unnecessarily owing to primary care staff failing to provide proven EBP, which would better meet patient needs. Public finance has been invested in DHT, which are not being used to their full potential. Originality/value - The study shows the gaps between current and potential proven effective EBPs for services to patients with chronic conditions. Findings suggest possible explanations for differences and practical improvements by comparing the two countries. Many enhancements are low cost and the proportionate reduction in suffering and costs they bring is high.