Evidence-Based Practice Point-of-Care Resources: A Quantitative Evaluation of Quality, Rigor, and Content

Identifying primary care clinicians' preferences for, barriers to, and facilitators of information-seeking in clinical practice in Singapore: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The growth of medical knowledge and patient care complexity calls for improved clinician access to evidence-based resources. This study aimed to explore the primary care clinicians' preferences for, barriers to, and facilitators of information-seeking in clinical practice in Singapore.

METHODS

A convenience sample of ten doctors and ten nurses was recruited. We conducted semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants, eight doctors and ten nurses worked at government-funded polyclinics and two doctors worked in private practice. Most clinicians sought clinical information daily at the point-of-care. The most searched-for information by clinicians in practice was less common conditions. Clinicians preferred evidence-based resources such as clinical practice guidelines and UpToDate®. Clinical practice guidelines were mostly used when they were updated or based on memory. Clinicians also commonly sought answers from their peers. Furthermore, clinicians frequently use smartphones to access the Google search engine and UpToDate® app. The barriers to accessing clinical information included the lack of time, internet surfing separation of work computers, limited search functions in the organisation's server, and limited access to medical literature databases. The facilitators of accessing clinical information included convenience, easy access, and trustworthiness of information sources.

CONCLUSION

Most primary care clinicians in our study sought clinical information at the point-of-care daily and reported increasing use of smartphones for information-seeking. Future research focusing on interventions to improve access to credible clinical information for primary care clinicians at the point-of-care is recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been reviewed by NHG Domain Specific Review Board (NHG DSRB) (the central ethics committee) for ethics approval. NHG DSRB Reference Number: 2018/01355 (31/07/2019).

Effects of evidence-based nursing care interventions on wound pain and wound complications following surgery for finger tendon injury

We conducted this study aimed to examine the impact of evidence-based nursing interventions on postoperative wound pain and complications after surgery for finger tendon injury. A total of 86 patients treated for finger tendon injuries at our hospital from January 2021 to October 2023 were selected and randomly divided into an experimental group and a control group. The control group received conventional nursing care, while the experimental group received evidence-based nursing interventions. The study compared the postoperative wound pain intensity, incidence of complications and patient satisfaction with nursing care between the two groups. The analysis revealed that compared with conventional care, evidence-based nursing interventions significantly reduced the level of wound pain (p = 0.034) and the incidence of complications (4.65% vs. 18.60%, p = 0.043). It also increased patient satisfaction with the nursing care (97.67% vs. 83.72%, p = 0.026). The study indicates that the application of evidence-based nursing interventions for patients with finger tendon injuries can reduce postoperative wound pain, decrease the incidence of complications and enhance patient satisfaction with nursing care.

What Information Do Neuropsychologists Use to Guide their Clinical Decisions? A Survey on Knowledge and Application of Evidence-Based Practice in a French-Speaking Population

OBJECTIVE

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an approach that encourages clinicians to base their practice on evidence to improve the quality of patient care and reduce uncertainty in their clinical decisions. However, the state of knowledge and practice of neuropsychologists in French-speaking countries is still unknown. This study aimed to find out what these neuropsychologists know about EBP and whether they use it.

METHOD

A questionnaire with 39 questions for French-speaking neuropsychologists was distributed. The questions focused on neuropsychologists' knowledge and use of EBP and information that guide their clinical decisions.

RESULTS

A total of 392 respondents started the survey. The data show that only 35% correctly defined EBP and there was confusion between this practice and the strict use of research data. In practice, their decisions are influenced by multiple factors, including the patient's difficulties and advice from peers. Regarding the research, a significant proportion of the sample stated that they did not search the scientific literature frequently. Barriers to accessing scientific information and ineffective article-reading behavior were highlighted.

CONCLUSION

A lack of knowledge of EBP among French-speaking neuropsychologists was observed. Furthermore, the factors influencing their decision-making do not clearly fit the definitions of EBP. Information-seeking behaviors show several weaknesses and barriers to the integration of scientific evidence into practice. These results are like those of other studies conducted among psychologists or in other health professions. We will discuss possible courses of action that could be implemented to improve the knowledge and use of EBP.

Smartphone apps for point-of-care information summaries: systematic assessment of the quality and content

BACKGROUND

Clinicians need easy access to evidence-based information to inform their clinical practice. Point-of-care information summaries are increasingly available in the form of smartphone apps. However, the quality of information from the apps is questionable as there is currently no regulation on the content of the medical apps.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically assess the quality and content of the medical apps providing point-of-care information summaries that were available in two major app stores. We evaluated apps designed specifically for healthcare professionals and assessed their content development, editorial policy, coverage of medical conditions and trustworthiness.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic assessment of medical apps providing point-of-care information summaries available in Google Play and Apple app stores. Apps launched or updated since January 2020 were identified through a systematic search using 42matters. Apps meeting the inclusion criteria were downloaded and assessed. The data extraction and app assessment were done in parallel and independently by at least two reviewers. Apps were evaluated against the adapted criteria: (1) general characteristics, (2) content presentation of the summaries, (3) editorial quality, (4) evidence-based methodology, (5) coverage (volume) of the medical conditions, (6) usability of apps and (7) trustworthiness of the app based on HONcode principles. HONcode principles are guidelines used to inform users about the credibility and reliability of health information online. The results were reported as a narrative review.

RESULTS

Eight medical apps met the inclusion criteria and were systematically appraised. Based on our evaluation criteria, UpToDate supported 16 languages, and all other apps were English. Bullet points and brief paragraphs were used in all apps, and only DynaMed and Micromedex and Pathway-medical knowledge provided a formal grading system for the strength of recommendations for all the medical conditions in their apps. All the other apps either lacked a formal grading system altogether or offered one for some of the medical conditions. About 30% of the editorial quality assessment and 47.5% of the evidence-based methodology assessment were unclear or missing. UpToDate contained the most point-of-care evidence-based documents with >10 500 documents. All apps except 5-Minute Clinical Consult and DynaMed and Micromedex were available for offline access. Only Medscape complied with the HONcode principles.

CONCLUSIONS

Future apps should report a more detailed evidence-based methodology, be accessible for offline use and support search in more than one language. There should be clearer information provided in future apps regarding the declaration of authorship and conflict of interest.

JBI series paper 3: The importance of people, process, evidence, and technology in pragmatic, healthcare provider-led evidence implementation

In this paper, we describe and discuss evidence implementation as a venture in global human collaboration within the framework of "people, process, evidence, and technology" as a roadmap for navigating implementation. At its core implementation is not a technological, or theoretical process, it is a human process. That health professionals central to implementation activities may not have had formal training in implementation, highlights the need for processes and programs that can be integrated within healthcare organization structures. Audit with feedback is an accessible implementation approach that includes the capacity to embed theory, frameworks, and bottom-up change processes to improve the quality of care. In this third paper in the JBI series, we discuss how four overarching principals necessary for sustainability (Culture, Capacity, Communication, and Collaboration) are combined with evidence, technology, and resources for evidence-based practice change. This approach has been successfully used across hundreds of evidence implementation projects around the globe for over 15 years. We present healthcare practitioner-led evidence-based practice improvement as sustainable and achievable in collaborative environments such as the global JBI network as a primary interest of the practicing professions and provide an overview of the JBI approach to evidence implementation.

Point‐of‐care tools to support optometric care provision to people with age‐related macular degeneration: A randomised, placebo‐controlled trial

Purpose

Age‐related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision impairment. This randomised placebo‐controlled trial investigated whether point‐of‐care tools can improve optometrists' AMD knowledge and/or care provision.

Methods

Australian optometrists (n = 31) completed a demographics survey and theoretical AMD case study multiple‐choice questions (MCQs) to assess their confidence in AMD care provision and AMD knowledge. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of three point‐of‐care tools (online ‘Classification of Age‐related macular degeneration and Risk Assessment Tool’ (CARAT), paper CARAT, or ‘placebo’) to use when providing care to their subsequent 5–10 AMD patients. Participants self‐audited the compliance of their AMD care to best practice for these patients, and a similar number of consecutive patients seen prior to enrolment. Post‐intervention, participants retook the AMD knowledge MCQs and confidence survey.

Results

A total of 29 participants completed the study. At the study endpoint, clinical confidence relative to baseline improved with the paper CARAT, relative to placebo, for knowledge of AMD risk factors, asking patients about these factors and referring for medical retinal sub‐specialist care. There were no between‐group differences for the change in AMD knowledge scores. Considering record documentation for patients with any AMD severity, there were no significant between‐group differences for documenting patient risk factors, AMD severity, clinical examination techniques or management. In a sub‐analysis, the change from baseline in compliance for documenting discussions about patient smoking behaviours for early AMD patients was higher with use of the online CARAT relative to placebo (p = 0.04). For patients with intermediate AMD, the change from baseline in documenting the risk of progression to late AMD was greater among practitioners who used the paper CARAT, relative to placebo (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that point‐of‐care clinical tools can improve practitioner confidence and aspects of the documentation of AMD clinical care by optometrists as assessed by self‐audit.

A Tool to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals (CAPOCI): Design and Validation Study

BACKGROUND

User-friendly information at the point of care for health care professionals should be well structured, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and trustworthy. The reliability of information and the associated methodological process must be clear. There is no standard tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care (POC) information.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to develop and validate a new tool for assessment of trustworthiness of evidence-based POC resources to enhance the quality of POC resources and facilitate evidence-based practice.

METHODS

We designed the Critical Appraisal of Point-of-Care Information (CAPOCI) tool based on the criteria important for assessment of trustworthiness of POC information, reported in a previously published review. A group of health care professionals and methodologists (the authors of this paper) defined criteria for the CAPOCI tool in an iterative process of discussion and pilot testing until consensus was reached. In the next step, all criteria were subject to content validation with a Delphi study. We invited an international panel of 10 experts to rate their agreement with the relevance and wording of the criteria and to give feedback. Consensus was reached when 70% of the experts agreed. When no consensus was reached, we reformulated the criteria based on the experts' comments for a next round of the Delphi study. This process was repeated until consensus was reached for each criterion. In a last step, the interrater reliability of the CAPOCI tool was calculated with a 2-tailed Kendall tau correlation coefficient to quantify the agreement between 2 users who piloted the CAPOCI tool on 5 POC resources. Two scoring systems were tested: a 3-point ordinal scale and a 7-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

After validation, the CAPOCI tool was designed with 11 criteria that focused on methodological quality and author-related information. The criteria assess authorship, literature search, use of preappraised evidence, critical appraisal of evidence, expert opinions, peer review, timeliness and updating, conflict of interest, and commercial support. Interrater agreement showed substantial agreement between 2 users for scoring with the 3-point ordinal scale (τ=.621, P<.01) and scoring with the 7-point Likert scale (τ=.677, P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The CAPOCI tool may support validation teams in the assessment of trustworthiness of POC resources. It may also provide guidance for producers of POC resources.

Regional and rural allied health professionals in Australia need better information services training and support for evidence-based practice

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based practice requires health professionals to recognise situations of uncertainty in their practice, translate that uncertainty into answerable questions, and find and appraise information relevant to those questions. No research to date has explored the research-based information needs of allied health professionals (AHPs) in regional and rural Australia.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the information-seeking experiences and needs of AHPs in regional and rural Australia.

METHODS

A total of 80 AHPs, predominantly occupational therapists and physiotherapists, practising in regional and rural areas of Australia completed an online survey.

RESULTS

Almost all respondents reported having questions requiring research evidence, but most of their questions were worded non-specifically. Respondents practising in rural areas had greater perceived difficulty in obtaining relevant evidence than their regional counterparts. Many respondents reported wanting additional support to find relevant research evidence.

DISCUSSION

The findings offer insights regarding information-seeking challenges AHPs face and potential solutions, including improved training and increased health librarian support. However, due to sampling limitations, the results cannot be generalised to all allied health professions.

CONCLUSION

Allied health professionals may require more training and support to engage in efficient and effective information-seeking behaviours. Health librarians have a valuable role to play in providing this training and support.

Mobilising computable biomedical knowledge: challenges for clinical decision support from a medical knowledge provider

Introduction

This paper summarises a talk given at the first UK workshop on mobilising computable biomedical knowledge on 29 October 2019 in London. It examines challenges in mobilising computable biomedical knowledge for clinical decision support from the perspective of a medical knowledge provider.

Methods

We developed the themes outlined below after personally reflecting on the challenges that we have encountered in this field and after considering the barriers that knowledge providers face in ensuring that their content is accessed and used by healthcare professionals. We further developed the themes after discussing them with delegates at the workshop and listening to their feedback.

Discussion

There are many challenges in mobilising computable knowledge for clinical decision support from the perspective of a medical knowledge provider. These include the size of the task at hand, the challenge of creating machine interpretable content, the issue of standards, the need to do better in tracing how computable medical knowledge that is part of clinical decision support impacts patient outcomes, the challenge of comorbidities, the problem of adhering to safety standards and finally the challenge of integrating knowledge with problem solving and procedural skills, healthy attitudes and professional behaviours. Partnership is likely to be essential if we are to make progress in this field. The problems are too complex and interrelated to be solved by any one institution alone.

COPING STRATEGIES FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN, ADOLESCENTS AND WOMEN IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL ISOLATION DUE TO COVID-19: SCOPING REVIEW

ABSTRACT Objective: to map the recommendations of the coping strategies for violence against children, adolescents and women in the context of social isolation due to Covid-19. Method: a scoping review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute, through a research strategy carried out in the gray literature by the CAPES Portal and in the following databases: SCIELO, LILACS, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Institutional Repository for Information Exchange of the Pan American Health Organization. The analysis of the identified material was carried out by three independent reviewers. The extracted data were analyzed and synthesized in narrative form. Results: of the 526 studies found, 59 were kept for review and their content was summarized in six categories: 1) prevention; 2) identification and intervention; 3) continued care; 4) care for the safety and mental health of the professionals; 5) intersectoriality/interdisciplinarity; and 6) special care for vulnerable populations. Conclusion: the services must guarantee continuous, intersectoral and safe care, especially in the context of mental health, as well as community awareness must be promoted. Health professionals must be sensitive and alert to signs of violence, intervening immediately and connected to the safety network.

Methodological components and quality of evidence summaries: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to identify and map the available evidence related to evidence summary methodologies and indicators of quality.

INTRODUCTION

It can be challenging for clinicians and policy makers to keep up-to-date with current evidence and best practice. An evidence summary is a way to provide health care decision makers with the most recent, highest quality evidence available on a particular topic in an easily digestible format to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions. However, objectively evaluating the methodological quality of these types of evidence reviews is challenging.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Articles, papers, books, dissertations, reports and websites will be included if they evaluate, or describe the development or appraisal of, an evidence summary methodology.

METHODS

A three-step search strategy will be used to find both published and unpublished literature. The following databases will be searched: US National Library of Medicine Database (PubMed) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Embase. The gray literature search will include relevant government and university websites, the Health Evidence Network website, the World Health Organization (WHO) Health Evidence Network website, the McMaster Health Systems Evidence website, and relevant websites included in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Grey Matters Handbook. Sources published in English will be considered, with no date limitation.

Clinical Teaching: An Evidence-based Guide to Best Practices from the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors

Clinical teaching is the primary educational tool use to train learners from day one of medical school all the way to the completion of fellowship. However, concerns over time constraints and patient census have led to a decline in bedside teaching. This paper provides a critical review of the literature on clinical teaching with a focus on instructor teaching strategies, clinical teaching models, and suggestions for incorporating technology. Recommendations for instructor-related teaching factors include adequate preparation, awareness of effective teacher attributes, using evidence-based-knowledge dissemination strategies, ensuring good communication, and consideration of environmental factors. Proposed recommendations for potential teaching strategies include the Socratic method, the One-Minute Preceptor model, SNAPPS, ED STAT, teaching scripts, and bedside presentation rounds. Additionally, this article will suggest approaches to incorporating technology into clinical teaching, including just-in-time training, simulation, and telemedical teaching. This paper provides readers with strategies and techniques for improving clinical teaching effectiveness.

Education and clinical decision support for healthcare professionals on emergency preparedness for extremely dangerous pathogens: report of a conference workshop

Clinical decision support and e-learning will be essential if we are to achieve the goal of preventing outbreaks of infectious diseases caused by extremely dangerous pathogens. However, these resources on their own will not be enough to achieve this outcome. To achieve this outcome, resources must be integrated into undergraduate and postgraduate educational curricula, accredited as part of continuous professional development programmes, built around the knowledge and skills gaps of learners and developed using an evidence-based methodology that will enable healthcare professionals to put their learning into action for the benefit of both patients and populations. This article describes and contextualises the personal views discussed at a workshop on education and clinical decision support for healthcare professionals reacting to an infectious disease outbreak from extremely dangerous pathogens.

Accuracy and Effects of Clinical Decision Support Systems Integrated With BMJ Best Practice-Aided Diagnosis: Interrupted Time Series Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are an integral component of health information technologies and can assist disease interpretation, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. However, the utility of CDSS in the clinic remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to assess the effects of CDSS integrated with British Medical Journal (BMJ) Best Practice-aided diagnosis in real-world research.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, longitudinal observational study using routinely collected clinical diagnosis data from electronic medical records. A total of 34,113 hospitalized patient records were successively selected from December 2016 to February 2019 in six clinical departments. The diagnostic accuracy of the CDSS was verified before its implementation. A self-controlled comparison was then applied to detect the effects of CDSS implementation. Multivariable logistic regression and single-group interrupted time series analysis were used to explore the effects of CDSS. The sensitivity analysis was conducted using the subgroup data from January 2018 to February 2019.

RESULTS

The total accuracy rates of the recommended diagnosis from CDSS were 75.46% in the first-rank diagnosis, 83.94% in the top-2 diagnosis, and 87.53% in the top-3 diagnosis in the data before CDSS implementation. Higher consistency was observed between admission and discharge diagnoses, shorter confirmed diagnosis times, and shorter hospitalization days after the CDSS implementation (all P<.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the consistency rates after CDSS implementation (OR 1.078, 95% CI 1.015-1.144) and the proportion of hospitalization time 7 days or less (OR 1.688, 95% CI 1.592-1.789) both increased. The interrupted time series analysis showed that the consistency rates significantly increased by 6.722% (95% CI 2.433%-11.012%, P=.002) after CDSS implementation. The proportion of hospitalization time 7 days or less significantly increased by 7.837% (95% CI 1.798%-13.876%, P=.01). Similar results were obtained in the subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The CDSS integrated with BMJ Best Practice improved the accuracy of clinicians' diagnoses. Shorter confirmed diagnosis times and hospitalization days were also found to be associated with CDSS implementation in retrospective real-world studies. These findings highlight the utility of artificial intelligence-based CDSS to improve diagnosis efficiency, but these results require confirmation in future randomized controlled trials.

Tools to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review

Background

User-friendly information at the point of care should be well structured, rapidly accessible, and comprehensive. Also, this information should be trustworthy, as it will be used by health care practitioners to practice evidence-based medicine. Therefore, a standard, validated tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care information resources is needed.

Objective

This systematic review sought to search for tools to assess the trustworthiness of point-of-care resources and to describe and analyze the content of these tools.

Methods

A systematic search was performed on three sources: (1) we searched online for initiatives that worked off of the trustworthiness of medical information; (2) we searched Medline (PubMed) until June 2019 for relevant literature; and (3) we scanned reference lists and lists of citing papers via Web of Science for each retrieved paper. We included all studies, reports, websites, or methodologies that reported on tools that assessed the trustworthiness of medical information for professionals. From the selected studies, we extracted information on the general characteristics of the tools. As no standard, risk-of-bias assessment instruments are available for these types of studies, we described how each tool was developed, including any assessments on reliability and validity. We analyzed the criteria used in the different tools and divided them into five categories: (1) author-related information; (2) evidence-based methodology; (3) website quality; (4) website design and usability; and (5) website interactivity. The percentage of tools in compliance with these categories and the different criteria were calculated.

Results

Included in this review was a total of 17 tools, all published between 1997 and 2018. The tools were developed for different purposes, from a general quality assessment of medical information to very detailed analyses, all specifically for point-of-care resources. However, the development process of the tools was poorly described. Overall, seven tools had a scoring system implemented, two were assessed for reliability only, and two other tools were assessed for both validity and reliability. The content analysis showed that all the tools assessed criteria related to an evidence-based methodology: 82% of the tools assessed author-related information, 71% assessed criteria related to website quality, 71% assessed criteria related to website design and usability, and 47% of the tools assessed criteria related to website interactivity. There was significant variability in criteria used, as some were very detailed while others were more broadly defined.

Conclusions

The 17 included tools encompass a variety of items important for the assessment of the trustworthiness of point-of-care information. Overall, two tools were assessed for both reliability and validity, but they lacked some essential criteria for the assessment of the trustworthiness of medical information for use at the point-of-care. Currently, a standard, validated tool does not exist. The results of this review may contribute to the development of such an instrument, which may enhance the quality of point-of-care information in the long term.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42019122565; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=122565

How Medical Students Discover and Use Medical Information Tools

Many studies have examined how medical faculty and fourth-year medical students use information tools. Few studies have investigated how first, second, and third-year medical students discover and use information tools. In fall 2018, first, second, and third-year medical students received emails describing a study, which included a three-question survey and four interview questions. Of the 525 students, 122 completed the survey and 18 completed interviews. Results showed that clinical students most frequently use UpToDate, but preclinical students use multiple information tools. This report shows librarians can positively influence how preclinical students use information tools during medical school.

The updated Joanna Briggs Institute Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare

BACKGROUND

The Joanna Briggs Institute Model for Evidence-Based Healthcare was first conceptualized in 2005. This developmental framework for evidence-based practice situated healthcare evidence, in its broadest sense, and its role and use within complex healthcare settings. The Model was recently reviewed with a view to understanding its utility by health professionals, researchers and policy makers, and the analysis revealed a need to reconsider the composition and language of the Model to ensure its currency on the international stage.

MAIN BODY

The current article proposes a revised Joanna Briggs Institute Model for consideration by the international community. It seeks to clarify the conceptual integration of evidence generation, synthesis, transfer and implementation, linking how these occur with the necessarily challenging dynamics that contribute to whether translation of evidence into policy and practice is successful. It also accounts for the role of different types of evidence, both research and text and opinion, and how evidence contributes to achieving improved health outcomes globally. In addition, it is centered on the importance of accounting for evidence of feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness and effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

The Model has been an important part of the Institute's development, both from a scientific and organizational perspective. Given the changing international discourse relating to evidence and its translation into policy and practice over the course of the last decade, it was opportune to revisit the Model and assess its ongoing applicability in its current form. Some alterations have been made for consideration in the hope that the Model reflects the Institute's current conceptualization of evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) and to increase its relevance and use pragmatically.

Evidence transfer: ensuring end users are aware of, have access to, and understand the evidence

The Joanna Briggs Institute Model of evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) states that the main phases of EBHC include evidence synthesis, transfer, and implementation. There has been some confusion regarding the term 'evidence transfer', with this term previously being considered by many as synonymous with knowledge or evidence translation. The aim of this paper is to discuss a proposed definition of evidence transfer and the pivotal role it plays as part of the EBHC process. 'Evidence transfer' can be thought of simply as getting the message (evidence) across and at its core it is all about information delivery. We specifically define evidence transfer as a process that helps communicate or convey the results of research or evidence, or brings evidence to the forefront. It is focused on ensuring people are aware of, have access to and understand evidence.

Initial perceptions of, and intention to use, an online guideline adaptation framework: a descriptive survey

AIM

The aim of this research was to evaluate CAN-Implement.Pro as a structured and systematic process for planning local evidence implementation, to develop a contextual and demographic profile of potential users and assess their initial perceptions and intention to use CAN-Implement.Pro.

METHODS

Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval number: H-2016-157). A descriptive cross-sectional study was undertaken to capture the demographic characteristics of participants, as well as their initial perceptions of, and intention to use, the software for guideline adaptation projects.

RESULTS

A total of 21 individuals representing guideline groups completed the survey. Only 43% had taken part in at least one previous implementation project. Thirty-three percent reported embarking on their first implementation project; 24% had yet to participate in an evidence implementation project. Nursing was the most highly referenced profession at 75%, followed by medical specialties (40%); two respondents indicated allied health professions were included in their implementation group. Respondents represented countries or regions of high and upper middle income as classified by the WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. The majority (67%) found CAN-Implement.Pro to be well-organized, easy to navigate and reliable. Most (80%) also indicated they were more likely to return to the software than not; 20% were neutral. In terms of overall satisfaction, more than half (60%) were very satisfied or satisfied, a third (33%) was neutral and 7% were dissatisfied. Over 66% of the respondents considered their group to be familiar with the knowledge-to-action model. A slightly higher percentage (74%) reported software based upon the knowledge-to-action model had a strong conceptual framework. In terms of evidence informed functionality, 75% of the respondents concluded that the software could assist guideline groups to provide structure for their implementation planning; a similar proportion (75%) indicated that the software would also enhance or improve coordination, communication and logistics management in guideline-related implementation projects. Participants were familiar with a range of resources, models, theories and frameworks for implementation, implementation planning and guideline adaptation. The most common frameworks were related to behavioural theories or variations of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.

CONCLUSION

Eighty percent of the respondents indicated that their group would be likely to use the software to guide implementation planning in future projects, whereas 20% were neutral. In terms of expectations for contemporary software, multimedia resources rated highly, as did interactive components within the knowledge-to-action model.

Systematic Reviews in Burns Care: Poor Quality and Getting Worse

The objective of this article is to investigate adherence to reporting standards and methodological quality in systematic reviews on burns care published in peer-reviewed journals to determine their utility for guiding evidence-based burns care. PubMed, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports were searched from 2009. Any systematic review on any question on therapeutic interventions in burns care was eligible for inclusion. Critical appraisal and data extraction were performed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist by two independent reviewers. The overall quality of the 44 included burns care systematic reviews was low, with an average methodological quality of 55% and an average compliance with reporting guidelines of 70%. Correlation analysis showed that adherence to reporting guidelines has been relatively stable, but methodological quality has deteriorated (r = -.32, P < .05). Cochrane reviews had lower citation rates than reviews published in other journals, whereas reviews that included meta-analyses had more citations. Quality did not have a significant effect on citation rate. Health professionals working in burns should be able to expect that systematic reviews published in their field are of a high standard. Unfortunately, this is not the case. To address this problem, established guidelines on the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews should be adhered to by researchers and editors.