Effects of an evidence service on community-based AIDS service organizations' use of research evidence: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Michael G Wilson, John N Lavis, Jeremy M Grimshaw, R Brian Haynes, Tsegaye Bekele, Sean B Rourke, Michael G Wilson, John N Lavis, Jeremy M Grimshaw, R Brian Haynes, Tsegaye Bekele, Sean B Rourke

Abstract

Background: To support the use of research evidence by community-based organizations (CBOs) we have developed 'Synthesized HIV/AIDS Research Evidence' (SHARE), which is an evidence service for those working in the HIV sector. SHARE consists of several components: an online searchable database of HIV-relevant systematic reviews (retrievable based on a taxonomy of topics related to HIV/AIDS and open text search); periodic email updates; access to user-friendly summaries; and peer relevance assessments. Our objective is to evaluate whether this 'full serve' evidence service increases the use of research evidence by CBOs as compared to a 'self-serve' evidence service.

Methods/design: We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study to explore the findings in greater depth. All CBOs affiliated with Canadian AIDS Society (n = 120) will be invited to participate and will be randomized to receive either the 'full-serve' version of SHARE or the 'self-serve' version (a listing of relevant systematic reviews with links to records on PubMed and worksheets that help CBOs find and use research evidence) using a simple randomized design. All management and staff from each organization will be provided access to the version of SHARE that their organization is allocated to. The trial duration will be 10 months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month crossover period), the primary outcome measure will be the mean number of logins/month/organization (averaged across the number of users from each organization) between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be intention to use research evidence as measured by a survey administered to one key decision maker from each organization. For the qualitative study, one key organizational decision maker from 15 organizations in each trial arm (n = 30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps.

Discussion: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT to evaluate the effects of an evidence service specifically designed to support CBOs in finding and using research evidence.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01257724.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Linkages among the intervention, contextual developments, and theory of planned behaviour constructs.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Division of Health Promotion, Education & Communication; 1986.
    1. World Health Organization. Health 21: Health for All in the 21st Century. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 1999.
    1. Dobbins M, Rosenbaum P, Plews N, Law M, Fysh A. Information transfer: What do decision-makers want and need from researchers. Implementation Science. 2007;2:20. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-20.
    1. Haynes RB, Haines A. Getting research findings into practice: Barriers and bridges to evidence based clinical practice. BMJ. 1998;317:273–276.
    1. Innvaer S, Vist GE, Trommald M, Oxman AD. Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: A systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2002;7:239–244. doi: 10.1258/135581902320432778.
    1. Lavis JN, Davies HTO, Oxman AD, Denis J-L, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005;10:S1:35–S1:48.
    1. Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Wayne Perry B. Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature. Milbank Quarterly. 2007;85:729–768. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.x.
    1. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W. et al.Lost in translation: Time for a map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2007;26:13–24.
    1. Grol RP, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, Veld C, Rutten G, Mokking H. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: Observational study. BMJ. 1998;317:858–861.
    1. Lavis JN. Ideas at the margin or marginalized ideas? Nonmedical determinants of health in Canada. Health Affairs. 2002;21:107–112. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.107.
    1. McGlynn E, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A. et al.The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003;348:2635–2645. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa022615.
    1. Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook RH. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Quarterly. 1998;76:517–563. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00105.
    1. Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, Walters L, Wilczynski N, Jedraszewski D. et al.Second-Order Peer Review of the Medical Literature for Clinical Practitioners. JAMA. 2006;295:1801–1808. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.15.1801.
    1. Haynes RB, Holland J, Cotoi C, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Walters LA. et al.McMaster PLUS: A cluster randomized clinical trial of an intervention to accelerate clinical use of evidence-based information from digital libraries. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2006;13:593–600. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2158.
    1. Walshe K, Rundall TG. Evidence-based management: From theory to practice in health care. Milbank Quarterly. 2001;79:429–457. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.00214.
    1. Rundall TG, Martelli PF, Arroyo L, McCurdy R, Graetz I, Neuwirth EB. et al.The informed decisions toolbox: tools for knowledge transfer and performance improvement. Journal of Healthcare Management. 2007;52:325–341.
    1. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin SA, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) Health Research Policy and Systems. 2009;7
    1. Lavis JN. How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Medicine. 2009;6
    1. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Hammill AC, Boyko JA, Grimshaw J, Oxman A, Enhancing the Retrieval of Systematic Reviews that Can Inform Health System Management and Policymaking (under review) 2011.
    1. McMaster Health Forum. Health Systems Evidence. 2011.
    1. Wilson MG, Lavis JN, Travers R, Rourke SB. Community-based knowledge transfer and exchange: Helping community-based organizations link research to action. Implementation Science. 2010;5:33. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-33.
    1. Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye PB. Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Quarterly. 2007;85:729–768. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.x.
    1. Young SK. Evidence-based management: A literature review. Journal of Nursing Management. 2002;10:145–151. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2834.2002.00309.x.
    1. Lavis JN, Lomas J, Hamid M, Sewankambo NK. Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2006;84:620–628. doi: 10.2471/BLT.06.030312.
    1. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.
    1. CADTH. Rx for Change. 2010.
    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. 2010.
    1. Effective Health Care Research Consortium. 2010.
    1. Cochrane Collaboration. Evidence AID Project. 2010.
    1. Health-Evidence. 2009.
    1. Health Knowledge Network. 2010.
    1. Australasian Cochrane Centre. Policy Liaison Initiative. 2010.
    1. Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials. 2010.
    1. The WHO Reproductive Health Library. 2010.
    1. Lavis JN, Ross SE, McLeod CB, Gildiner A. Measuring the impact of health research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2003;8:165–170. doi: 10.1258/135581903322029520.
    1. Foy R, MacLennan G, Grimshaw JM, Penney G, Campbell M, Grol RP. Attributes of clinical recommendations that influence change in practice following audit and feedback. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2002;55:717–722. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00403-1.
    1. Grilli R, Lomas J. Evaluating the message: The relationship between compliance rate and the subject of a practice guideline. Medical Care. 1994;32:202–213. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199403000-00002.
    1. Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, Veld C, Rutten G, Mokkink H. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: Observational study. British Medical Journal. 1998;317:858–861.
    1. Haynes RB, Holland J, Cotoi C, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Walters LA. et al.McMaster PLUS: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial of an Intervention to Accelerate Clinical Use of Evidence-based Information from Digital Libraries. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2006;13:593–600. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2158.
    1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50:211.
    1. Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, Constructing Questionnaires Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Manual for Health Services Researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle; 2004.
    1. Sheeran P. In: European Review of Social Psychology. Stroebe W, Hewscone M, editor. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2002. Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review; pp. 1–36.
    1. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2001;40:471–499. doi: 10.1348/014466601164939.
    1. Bonetti D, Pitts NB, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Johnston M, Steen N. et al.Applying psychological theory to evidence-based clinical practice: Identifying factors predictive of taking intra-oral radiographs. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:1889–1899. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.005.
    1. Walker A, Watson M, Grimshaw J, Bond C. Applying the theory of planned behaviour to pharmacists' beliefs and intentions about the treatment of vaginal candidiasis with non-prescription medicines. Family Practice. 2004;21:1–7. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh101.
    1. Walker AE, Grimshaw JM, Armstrong EM. Salient beliefs and intentions to prescribeantibiotics for patients with a sore throat. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2001;6:347–360. doi: 10.1348/135910701169250.
    1. Eccles MP, Hrisos S, Francis J, kaner EF, Dickinson HO, Beyer F. et self-reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: A systematic review. Implementation Science. 2006;1:28. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-28.
    1. Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Souza NM. Reliability of a Tool for Measuring Theory of Planned Behaviour Constructs for use in Evaluating Research Use in Policymaking. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University; 2010.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. 4. New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2008.
    1. Diggle P, Heagerty P, Liang K-Y, Zeger S. Analysis of Longitudinal Data. 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2002.
    1. Collins KMT, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Jiao QG. A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1:267–294. doi: 10.1177/1558689807299526.
    1. Patton M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1990.
    1. Sandelowski M. Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing & Health. 2000;23:246–255. doi: 10.1002/1098-240X(200006)23:3<246::AID-NUR9>;2-H.
    1. Boeije H. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative methods in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity. 2002;36:391–409. doi: 10.1023/A:1020909529486.
    1. Creswell JW. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. London: Sage Publications; 1998.
    1. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320:114–116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.
    1. Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Wayne Perry B. Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Quarterly. 2007;85:729–768. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.x.
    1. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Grimshaw J, Haynes RB, Hanna S, Raina P, Effects of an evidence service on healthcare policymakers' use research evidence: A protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Implementation Science. in press .
    1. Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O'Mara L. et al.A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implementation Science. 2009;4:23. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-23.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever