Meeting physicians' needs: a bottom-up approach for improving the implementation of medical knowledge into practice.

BACKGROUND: Multiple barriers to knowledge translation in medicine have been identified (ranging from information overload to abstraction of models), leading to important implementation gaps. This study aimed at assessing the suggestions of practicing physicians for possible improvements of knowledge translation (KT) effectiveness into clinical practice. METHODS: We used a mixed methods design. French- German- and Italian-speaking general practitioners, psychiatrists, orthopaedic surgeons, cardiologists, and diabetologists practicing in Switzerland were interrogated through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, and an online survey. RESULTS: A total of 985 physicians from three regions of Switzerland participated in the online survey, whereas 39 participated in focus group discussions and 14 in face-to-face interviews. Physicians expressed limitations and difficulties related to KT into their daily practice. Several barriers were identified, including influence and pressure of pharmaceutical companies, non-publication of negative results, mismatch between guidelines and practice, education gaps, and insufficient collaboration between research and practice. Suggestions to overcome barriers were improving education concerning the evaluation of scientific publications, expanding applicability of guidelines, having free and easy access to independent journals, developing collaborations between research and practice, and creating tools to facilitate access to medical information. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides suggestions for improving KT into daily medical practice, matching the views, needs and preferences of practicing physicians. Responding to suggestions for improvements brought up by physicians may lead to better knowledge translation, higher professional satisfaction, and better healthcare outcomes.

Swiss family physicians' perceptions and attitudes towards knowledge translation practices.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have been performed to understand the way family physicians apply knowledge from medical research in practice. However, very little is known concerning family physicians in Switzerland. In an environment in which information constantly accumulates, it is crucial to identify the major sources of scientific information that are used by family physicians to keep their medical knowledge up to date and barriers to use these sources. Our main objective was to examine medical knowledge translation (KT) practices of Swiss family physicians. METHODS: The population consisted of French- and German-speaking private practice physicians specialised in family medicine. We conducted four interviews and three focus groups (n = 25). The interview guides of the semi-structured interviews and focus groups focused on (a) ways and means used by physicians to keep updated with information relevant to clinical practice; (b) how they consider their role in translating knowledge into practice; (c) potential barriers to KT; (d) solutions proposed by physicians for effective KT. RESULTS: Family physicians find themselves rather ambivalent about the translation of knowledge based on scientific literature, but generally express much interest in KT. They often feel overwhelmed by "information floods" and perceive clinical practice guidelines and other supports to be of limited usefulness for their practice. They often combine various formal and informal information sources to keep their knowledge up to date. Swiss family physicians report considering themselves as artisans, caring for patients with complex needs. CONCLUSION: Improved performance of KT initiatives in family medicine should be tailored to actual needs and based on high quality evidence-based sources.

[The RDoC Project: the neuropsychiatric classification of tomorrow?]. / Le projet RDoC - La classification psychiatrique de demain ?

This article gives a synthesis and overview of the history, methodological principles and scientific and media reception of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Project launched in 2009 by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). It is shown how the RDoC project opposes on several points the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders (DSM), but most particularly by focusing on the normal functioning of the brain with data from genetics, cognitive neuroscience and behavioral sciences. It is argued that this project is a bet on the future and that its success largely depends on the adhesion of the American researchers to the new framework it offers. However, paradoxically, this framework is still to be built.

[A new classification for better care. The promises of the translational psychiatric neuroscience]. / Classer autrement pour mieux soigner. Les promesses des neurosciences psychiatriques translationnelles.

This article explores the way neuroscientists call for the "deconstruction" of the classifications of mental disorders as we know them, in order to provide solutions to the slowdown of therapeutical innovation in psychiatry. It is based on the case study of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project of the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). My purpose is to show that neuroscience interested in mental disorders offers narratives of innovation, transformation, and desirable futures that are at the heart of the ambitious current research projects and influence them. I approach the versions of the futures proposed by the promoters of translational psychiatric neuroscience in terms of productivity at the scientific, epistemological and socio-political levels.