Closing the Gap Between Research and Practice: An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Interventions to Promote Implementation of Research Findings by Health Care Professionals

Getting research findings into practice Closing the gap between research and practice- an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings Lisa A Bero, Roberto GriIJi, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Emma Harvey A n d r e D O ™ , n u A W Despite the considerable amount o f m o n e y spent o n c l i n i c a l r e s e a r c h relatively little a t t e n t i o n has b e e n p a i d to ensuring that implemented the findings of research i n routine clinical practice S u m m a r y are p o i n t s There are m a n y different types o f i n t e r v e n t i o n that can b e u s e d t o Systematic reviews o f promote best e v i d e n c e o n t h e effectiveness behavioural professionals findings. the change among healthcare a n d the implementation of research D i s e n t a n g l i n g t h e effects o f i n t e r v e n t i o n influence o f contextual factors i s difficult mural change. effectiveness t h e best o f different behavioural systematic provide change. ' reviews strategies I n this of evidence for paper when to P a s s i v e d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n is g e n e r a l l y ineffective promoting identify examine encourage strategies different evidence of It s e e m s n e c e s s a r y t o u s e s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s t o we for the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d to ensure changes i n find- t h e effectiveness implementation o f research based practice C A 94109, U S A of Lisa A B e r o , different strategies a n d to assess t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e svs- tematic reviews. F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h o n t h e relative effectiveness Identification a n d inclusion o f systematic reviews searched M e d l i n e records dating from 1966to with the N H S Centre for Reviews a n dDissemination T h e search identified 1 1 3 3 references N o reviews * e C o c h r a n e Effective from Practice a n d Organisation o f and e f f i c i e n c y o f d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i c s is r e q u i r e d criteria, systematic reviews focusing o n the method- o l o g i c a l quality o f p u b l i s h e d studies, p u b l i s h e d bibliog- raphies, bibliographic projects We o n dissemination from our updated review. we databases, I f systematic considered a n d registers activities only were reviews seded the earlier review b y G r i m s h a w a n d Russell. Two A f h ' ^ t V (^ywk.acuk/inst/ crd) but d i d n o t identify a n y other review m e e t i n g t h e inclusion criteria. i d t t W D A R We improve searched f o r a n y review professional o f interventions to performance that reported of reviewers t h e reviews guidelines Care time. I n addition, w e searched the M Ablate clinical Unit o f Clinical Policy Analysis, Laboratory o f Clinical Epidemiology. Istituiodixicerdw Farmacologiche Mario N e g r i Via Eritrea 6 2 . 2 0 1 5 7 Milan. Italy Roberto Criiti, recently Health oulleun » of o n implementing h a d been the most p u b l i s h e d r e v i e w . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e BgOtiWt of excluded Care R e v i e w G r o u p * h a d b e e n p u b l i s h e d d u r i n g this i Institute for Health Policy Studies, University o f California at San Francisco, 138S Suiter Street, I t i l l tfoor.San Francisco o f the dissemination a n d implementation o f research ings o f different research Endings Nevertheless, systematic reviews o f r i g - studies studies provide t h e strategies t o p r o m o t e t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f from i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e results o f i n d i v i d u a l trials o f b e h a v orous rigorous This Is the seventh la a series ol eight articles analysing (tie gap between research and practice continued over super- s BMJ I998J i7:165-8 i n d e p e n d e n t l y assessed t h e quality a n d extracted data o n the focus i n c l u s i o n criteria, m a i n results, a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f e a c h review. A p r e v i o u s l y v a l i d a t e d checklist ( i n c l u d i n g n i n e c r i t e r i a s c o r e d as d o n e , p a r t i a l l y d o n e , o r n o t d o n e ) was the main u s e d t o assess q u a l i t y . R e v i e w s a l s o g a v e a s u m m a r y outcomes considered were changes i n p e r f o r m a n c e o r score (out o f seven) based o n the scientific quality o f explicit selection outcome. Renews criteria d dn a n d i n which o t r e p o r t the were BMJ V O U M - S 1 7 15 A U G U S T I M S review. resolved Major disagreements between reviewers b y discussion a n d consensus. wwbrnkom