Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-4m4jm Total loading time: 0.36 Render date: 2021-10-26T12:52:49.391Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

5 - Facilitators and barriers to using evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

Anne Andermann
Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Get access

Summary

Producing evidence is not the same as using evidence. Notwithstanding the value of creating knowledge for its own sake, it is difficult to justify spending valuable resources on countless research studies, especially research studies where there is potential for causing harm to research subjects (whether human or animal), if it does not contribute to a deeper understanding of the world we live in and how to make that world a better place. Yet, even the highest quality evidence is useless if it is not incorporated into decision-making for health. Indeed, the study of why health practitioners do not use evidence-based clinical practice guidelines has become a field of research in its own right. A systematic review of systematic reviews found that interactive techniques such as audit, feedback, outreach and reminder systems work best to promote the uptake of evidence. Despite this, clinical practice guidelines are often used in an attempt to change physician behaviours, but with much less success. There exists an entire online clearinghouse with thousands of such guidelines, but what good are they if nobody uses them? Therefore, at the core of the research cycle presented in the previous chapter, there is “synthesis, dissemination and utilisation”, which are the driving forces for ensuring that research evidence is used to influence decisions that can improve health. In an ideal world, this is not just an afterthought at the end of the cycle, but something that occurs every step of the way to continually move evidence into policy and practice (Fig. 5.1). However, if our goal is to make more evidence-informed decisions that improve health, it is also important to be aware of the many barriers to using research evidence, such as missing the window of opportunity, controversy over the research findings and vested interests. This chapter therefore describes in greater detail some of the facilitators and barriers to translating research evidence into improved health outcomes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Evidence for Health
From Patient Choice to Global Policy
, pp. 121 - 145
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cabana, M, Rand, C, Powe, N et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999; 282: 1458–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, B. Effects of continuing medical education on improving physician clinical care and patient health: A review of systematic reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(3): 380–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Graham, I, Logan, J, Harrison, M et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?Contin Educ Health Prof 2006; 26: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenhalgh, T, Wieringa, S. Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review. J R Soc Med 2011; 104(12): 501–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Straus, S, Tetroe, J, Graham, I. Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ 2009; 181: 165–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denis, J, Lomas, J, Stipich, N. Creating receptor capacity for research in the health system: the Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA) program in Canada. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008; 13 (Suppl 1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomas, J. The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ 2007; 334(7585): 129–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, I. Knowledge translation at CIHR [PowerPoint presentation]. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes for Health Research, 2009. Available at: .Google Scholar
The Cochrane Collaboration. Glossary. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Higgins, J, Green, S (eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0, Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: .
Waters, E, de Silva-Sanigorski, A, Hall, B, et al. Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (12): CD001871.Google Scholar
Rosen, L, Ben, Noach M, Rosenberg, E. Missing the forest (plot) for the trees? A critique of the systematic review in tobacco control. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010; 10: 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taubes, G. Do we really know what makes us healthy?The New York Times Magazine. September 16, 2007. Available at: .Google Scholar
Oxman, A, Sackett, D, Guyatt, G. Users’ guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. JAMA 1993; 270(17): 2093–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Appraising the Evidence. Oxford: CASP UK, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Stead, L, Perera, R, Bullen, C, Mant, D, Lancaster, T. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2008; (1): CD000146. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub3. Available at: .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Budetti, P. Ensuring safe and effective medications for children. JAMA 2003; 290: 950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care. Ottawa: Health Canada, 1994. Available at: .Google Scholar
US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012. Available at: .
US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2010–2011. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2010. Available at: .Google Scholar
Task Force on Community Preventive Services; Zaza, S, Briss, P, Harris, K (ed.). The Guide to Community Preventive Services: What Works to Promote Health? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Available at: .Google Scholar
US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Grade Definitions After May 2007. Rockville, MD: USPSTF Program Office, 2008. Available at: .Google Scholar
Altman, D and Bland, J. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995; 311: 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banta, H, Luce, B. Health Care Technology and Its Assessment: An International Perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Secretariat. Members. Cologne, Germany: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, 2012. Available at: .
Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18: 361–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). HTA Database. York: University of York, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Ueffing, E, Tugwell, P, Roberts, J et al. Equity-oriented toolkit for health technology assessment and knowledge translation: application to scaling up of training and education for health workers. Hum Resour Health 2009; 7: 67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Collaboration awarded seat on World Health Assembly. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: .
Panisset, U. EVIPNet Evidence-Informed Policy Network for Better Decision Making. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009. Available at: .Google Scholar
Lavis, J, Davies, H, Oxman, A et al. Towards systematic reviews that inform healthcare management and policymaking. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005; 10 (Suppl 1): 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, E, Armstrong, R, Swinburn, B et al. An exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of knowledge translation strategies to support evidence-informed decision-making in local governments (The KT4LG study). BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Summaries. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Breast Cancer Screening: Patient Algorithm. Ottawa: Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, 2011. Available at: .Google Scholar
Health on the Net Foundation. Looking for Reliable Health Information?Chene-Bourg, Switzerland: Health on the Net Foundation, 2011. Available at: .Google Scholar
Nutbeam, D, Harris, E. Theory in a nutshell: A practical guide to health promotion theories, 2nd edn. Sydney, Australia: McGraw Hill, 2004.Google Scholar
Mavriplis, C, Thériault, G. The periodic health examination: a comparison of United States and Canadian recommendations (French). Can Fam Physician 2006; 52: 58–63.Google Scholar
Finkel, M. Understanding the Mammography Controversy: Science, Politics and Breast Cancer Screening. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2005.Google Scholar
Olsen, O, Gøtzsche, P. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(4):CD001877.Google Scholar
Bock, K, Borisch, B, Cawson, J et al. Effect of population-based screening on breast cancer mortality. Lancet 2011; 378(9805): 1775–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gøtzsche, P, Nielsen, M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(1):CD001877.Google Scholar
Gotzsche, P, Hartling, O, Nielsen, M, Broderson, J, Jorgensen, K. Breast screening: the facts – or maybe not. BMJ 2009; 338: b86. Available at: .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for Breast Cancer (2002). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2002. Available at: .Google Scholar
Moss, S, Cuckle, H, Evans, A et al.; Trial Management Group. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 368: 2053–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for Breast Cancer. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2009. Available at: .Google Scholar
AGREE Collaboration. Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, M, Stattin, P. Guidelines are too important to be left to clinical experts. CMAJ 2012; 184: 159–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tong, E, Glantz, S. Tobacco industry efforts undermining evidence linking secondhand smoke with cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2007; 116(16): 1845–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, D, Bero, L. Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research. J Health Polit Policy Law 1996; 21(3): 515–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, S, Shatenstein, S. The ethics of the cash register: taking tobacco research dollars. Tob Control 2001; 10(1): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tong, E, England, L, Glantz, S. Changing conclusions on secondhand smoke in a sudden infant death syndrome review funded by the tobacco industry. Pediatrics 2005; 115(3): e356–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lexchin, J. Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications. Sci Eng Ethics 2012; 18(2): 247–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muggli, M, Forster, J, Hurt, R, Repace, J. The smoke you don’t see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies. Am J Public Health 2001; 91(9): 1419–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schafer, A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis—learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. J Med Ethics 2004; 30(1): 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, S, Baird, P, Evans, R et al. Dancing with the porcupine: rules for governing the university-industry relationship. CMAJ 2001; 165(6): 783–5.
Canada, Genome. Harper Government Invests in Personalized Medicine [press release]. Ottawa: Genome Canada, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Wade, N. A Decade Later, Genetic Map Yields Few New Cures. The New York Times June 12, 2010. Available at: .Google Scholar
Kazan-Allen, L. The asbestos war. Int J Occup Environ Health 2003; 9(3): 173–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shochat, B. Health Canada’s Asbestos Advice Rejected by Government. CBC News, June 13, 2011. Available at: .Google Scholar
Attaran, A, Boyd, D, Stanbrook, M. Asbestos mortality: a Canadian export. CMAJ 2008; 179(9): 871–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fatal Deception: Is the Federal Government Relying on Junk Science to Justify Its Support for Re-Opening Asbestos Mines in Quebec? CBC News February 2, 2012. Available at: .
Versailles, G. Asbestos use at Montreal’s new hospital [letter to the editor]. The Gazette January 3, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Saganash, R. Harper Must Put Lives before Politics on Asbestos: NDP [press release]. Romeo Saganash MP Blog June 14, 2011. Available at: .Google Scholar
Schmidt, S, De Souza, M. Feds Admitted Dangers of Asbestos While Fighting ‘Hazardous’ Label: Documents. PostMedia News June 25, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Van Lerberghe, W, Evans, T, Rasanathan, K et al. World Health Report 2008 - Primary Health Care: Now More than Ever. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008.Google Scholar
O’Hagan, H. Medical Tourists Opting for Sea, Sand, Sun and Surgery. The National February 18, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
James, C, Peabody, J, Solon, O, Quimbo, S, Hanson, K. An unhealthy public-private tension: pharmacy ownership, prescribing, and spending in the Philippines. Health Affairs 2009; 28: 1022–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cromwell, J, Mitchell, J. Physician-induced demand for surgery. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 293–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, S, Dakpallah, G, Garner, P, et al. Carrot and stick: state mechanisms to influence private provider behaviour. Health Policy Plan 1994; 9: 1–13.Google Scholar
The World Bank. Health Policy Toolkit. Washington DC: The World Bank, 2012. Available at: .Google Scholar
Hozumi, D, Frost, L, Suraratdecha, C et al. The Role of the Private Sector in Health: A Landscape Analysis of Global Players’ Attitudes toward the Private Sector in Health Systems and Policy Levers That Influence These Attitudes. NY: The Rockefeller Foundation, 2008. Available at: .Google Scholar
Whitehead, M, Dahlgren, G, Evans, T. Equity and health sector reforms: can low-income countries escape the medical poverty trap?Lancet 2001; 358(9284): 833–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tipping, G. The Social Impact of User Fees For Health Care on Poor Households: Commissioned Report to the Ministry of Health. Hanoi, Vietnam: Health Policy Unit, Ministry of Health, 2000.Google Scholar
Stuckler, D, King, L, McKee, M. Mass privatisation and the post-communist mortality crisis: a cross-national analysis. Lancet 2009; 373(9661): 399–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). Visible hands – Taking Responsibility for Social Development. Geneva: UNRISD, 2000.Google Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×