Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2023-09-14 DOI:10.1332/174426421x16917571241005
Susan Calnan, Sheena McHugh
{"title":"Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study","authors":"Susan Calnan, Sheena McHugh","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16917571241005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To support evidence-informed decision making in a health service context, there is a need to better understand the contextual challenges regarding evidence use. Aims and objectives: To examine experiences of evidence use and perceived barriers, facilitators and recommended strategies to increase research use among senior decision makers in the national health service in Ireland. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with decision makers in Ireland’s national health service (n= 17) from August 2021 to January 2022. Criterion sampling was used (division in the organisation and grade of position), and interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Barriers and facilitators were mapped according to multiple-level categories (individual, organisational, research, social, economic, political) identified in the literature. Findings: Health service decision makers described a blended and often reactive approach to using evidence; the type and source of evidence used depended on the issue at hand. Barriers and facilitators to research use manifested at multiple levels, including the individual (time); organisational (culture, access to research, resources, skills); research (relevance, quality); and social, economic and political levels (external links with universities, funding, political will). Strategies recommended by participants to enhance evidence-informed decision making included synthesising key messages from the research, strengthening links with universities, and fostering more embedded research. Discussion and conclusion: Evidence use in health service contexts is a dynamic process with multiple drivers. This study underlines the need for a multilevel approach to support research use in health services, including strategies targeted at less tangible elements such as the organisational culture regarding research.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"357 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16917571241005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To support evidence-informed decision making in a health service context, there is a need to better understand the contextual challenges regarding evidence use. Aims and objectives: To examine experiences of evidence use and perceived barriers, facilitators and recommended strategies to increase research use among senior decision makers in the national health service in Ireland. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with decision makers in Ireland’s national health service (n= 17) from August 2021 to January 2022. Criterion sampling was used (division in the organisation and grade of position), and interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Barriers and facilitators were mapped according to multiple-level categories (individual, organisational, research, social, economic, political) identified in the literature. Findings: Health service decision makers described a blended and often reactive approach to using evidence; the type and source of evidence used depended on the issue at hand. Barriers and facilitators to research use manifested at multiple levels, including the individual (time); organisational (culture, access to research, resources, skills); research (relevance, quality); and social, economic and political levels (external links with universities, funding, political will). Strategies recommended by participants to enhance evidence-informed decision making included synthesising key messages from the research, strengthening links with universities, and fostering more embedded research. Discussion and conclusion: Evidence use in health service contexts is a dynamic process with multiple drivers. This study underlines the need for a multilevel approach to support research use in health services, including strategies targeted at less tangible elements such as the organisational culture regarding research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
爱尔兰高级卫生服务决策者对证据使用的经验和看法:一项定性研究
背景:为了支持卫生服务环境下的循证决策,有必要更好地了解有关证据使用的背景挑战。目的和目标:审查证据使用的经验和感知到的障碍、促进因素和建议的战略,以增加爱尔兰国家卫生服务高级决策者对研究的使用。方法:从2021年8月至2022年1月,我们对爱尔兰国家卫生服务机构的决策者进行了半结构化访谈(n= 17)。使用标准抽样(组织划分和职位等级),并使用专题分析对访谈进行分析。障碍和促进因素根据文献中确定的多层次类别(个人、组织、研究、社会、经济、政治)进行映射。研究结果:卫生服务决策者描述了一种混合的、往往是被动的证据使用方法;所用证据的类型和来源取决于手头的问题。研究使用的障碍和促进因素表现在多个层面,包括个人(时间);组织(文化、获得研究、资源、技能);研究(相关性、质量);以及社会、经济和政治层面(与大学的外部联系、资金、政治意愿)。与会者建议的加强循证决策的策略包括综合来自研究的关键信息、加强与大学的联系以及促进更多的嵌入式研究。讨论和结论:卫生服务环境中的证据使用是一个具有多种驱动因素的动态过程。这项研究强调需要一种多层次的方法来支持卫生服务中的研究使用,包括针对诸如研究方面的组织文化等不太有形因素的战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1