Research Benefits and Utilization
![Research Benefits and Utilization Potential Measurement Research Benefits and Utilization Potential Measurement](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf657yVAEw6NAq1h89qfvfPXpeZhbpJ7q5qZz3exCUK5t_UjXjYQGsYvRQ0mPbRwHwAuu9Y7U7l3gIXzwvYprzhPW4MF2FpkYcwF7EDXSI4vj1A98o4MiUzN8HpG1qu4woUvpPGZc6M9YLtndo_6-k-twRYr96eCQxDxWHWahM6IUUD0PbboSYmyAe/w640-h320/Research%20Benefits%20and%20Utilization%20Potential%20Measurement.png)
Assessing implementation potential
Some models of RU/EBP move directly from the conclusion that evidence supports a change in practice to the pilot testing of the innovation. Others include steps first to evaluate the appropriateness of innovation within the specific organizational context; in some cases, such an assessment (or aspects of it) may be warranted even before embarking on efforts to assemble best evidence.
Other models suggest evaluating
issues of fit after the practice change has been implemented. We think a
preliminary assessment of the implementation potential of an innovation is
often sensitive, although there may be situations with little need for such a
formal assessment. In determining the implementation potential of an innovation
in a particular setting, several issues should be considered, particularly the
transferability of the innovation, the feasibility of implementing it, and its
cost-benefit ratio. some relevant assessment questions for these three issues.
Transferability: The
main issue with regard to transferability is whether it makes good sense to
implement an innovation in the new practice setting. If there is some aspect of
the practice setting that is fundamentally incongruent with the innovation—in
terms of its philosophy, types of clients served, personnel, or financial or
administrative structure—then it might make little sense to try to adopt the
innovation, even if it has been shown to be clinically effective in other
contexts. One possibility, however, is that some organizational changes could
be made to make the “fit” better.
Feasibility :The
feasibility questions in addressing various practical concerns about the
availability of staff and resources, the organizational climate, the need for
and availability of external assistance, and the potential for clinical
evaluation. An important issue here is whether nurses will have (or share)
control over the innovation. When nurses do not have full control over the new
procedure, it is important to recognize the interdependent nature of the
project and to proceed as early as possible to establish the necessary
cooperative arrangements.
Cost–benefit ratio : A critical part of any decision to proceed with an RU/EBP project is a careful assessment of the costs and benefits of the innovation. The cost-benefit assessment should encompass likely costs and benefits to various groups, including clients, staff, and the overall organization. Clearly, the most important factor is the client. If the degree of risk in introducing a new procedure is high, then the potential benefits must be great and the knowledge base must be extremely sound. A cost–benefit assessment should consider the opposite side of the coin as well: the costs and benefits of not instituting an innovation.
It is sometimes easy to forget that the status quo bears its own
risks and that failure to change—especially when such change is based on a firm
knowledge base—is costly to clients, to organizations, and to the entire
nursing community. Developing, Implementing, and Evaluating the Innovation If
the implementation criteria are met, the team can design and pilot the
innovation. Building on the Iowa model, this phase of the project likely would
involve the following activities:
1. Developing an evaluation plan
(eg, identifying outcomes to be achieved, determining how many clients to
involve in the pilot, deciding when and how often to take measurements);
2. Collecting baseline data relating
to those outcomes, to develop a counterfactual against which the outcomes of
the innovation would be assessed;
3. Developing a written EBP
guideline based on the synthesis of evidence, preferably a guideline that is
clear and user-friendly, and that uses such devices as flow charts and decision
trees;
4. Training relevant staff in the
use of the new guideline and, if necessary, "marketing" the
innovation to users so that it is given a fair test;
5. Trying the guideline out on one
or more units or with a sample of clients; other
6. Evaluating the pilot project, in
terms of both process (eg, how was the innovation received, to what extent were
the guidelines actually followed, what implementation problems were
encountered?) and outcomes (in terms of client outcomes and cost-effectiveness)
.
Key Points
Research utilization (RU) and -based practice (EBP) are overlapping concepts that concern evidence efforts to use research as a basis for clinical decisions. RU starts with a research based innovation that gets evaluated for possible use in practice. EBP starts with a search for the best possible evidence for a clinical problem, with emphasis on research-based evidence.
Research utilization exists on a continuum, with
direct utilization of some specific innovation at one end ( instrumental
utilization ), and more diffuse situations in which users are influenced in
their thinking about an issue based on research findings ( conceptual
utilization ) at the other end .
Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations
Theory describes the innovation adoption process as occurring in five
stages: the knowledge stage, persuasion stage, decision stage, implementation
stage, and confirmation stage. • Several major utilization projects have been
implemented (eg, the Conduct and Utilization of Research in Nursing or CURN
project ) that have demonstrated that research utilization can be
increased, but have also shed light on barriers to utilization.
EBP, which de-emphasizes clinical
decision making based on custom or ritual, integrates the best available
research evidence with other sources of data, including clinical expertise and
patient preferences. Two of the cornerstones of the EBP movement are the
Cochrane Collaboration (which is based on the work of British epidemiologist
Archie Cochrane), and the clinical learning strategy called evidence-based
medicine developed at the McMaster Medical School.
EBP typically involves weighing
various types of evidence, and often an evidence hierarchy is used to
rank studies and other information according to the strength of evidence
provided.
In nursing, EBP and RU efforts often
face a variety of barriers, including methodologically weak or replicated
studies, nurses' limited training in research and EBP, resistance to change,
lack of organizational support, resource constraints, and limited communication
and collaboration between practitioners and researchers.
Many models of RU and EBP have been
developed, including models for individual clinicians (eg, the Stetler model
) and ones for organizations or groups of clinicians (eg, the Iowa Model
of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care ).
Most models of utilization involve
the following steps: selecting a topic or problem; assembling and evaluating
evidence; assessing the implementation potential of an evidence-based
innovation; developing or identifying EBP guidelines or protocols; implementing
the innovation; evaluating outcomes; and decide whether to adopt or modify the
innovation or revert to prior practices. Assessing implementation potential
includes the dimensions of transferability of findings, feasibility of using
the findings in the new setting, and the cost–benefit ratio of a new practice.
EBP relies on rigorous integration
of research evidence on a topic through integrative reviews , which are
rigorous, systematic inquiries with many similarities to original primary
studies.
Integrative reviews can involve
either qualitative, narrative approaches to integration (including meta
synthesis of qualitative studies), or quantitative (meta-analytic) methods.
Integrative reviews typically
involve the following activities: developing a question or hypothesis;
assembling a review team; selecting a sample of studies to be included in the
review; extracting and recording data from the sampled studies; doing quality
assessments of the studies; analyzing the data; and writing up the review.
Quality assessments (which may
involve formal quantitative ratings) are sometimes used to exclude weak studies
from integrative reviews, but can also be used in sensitivity analyzes to
determine if including or excluding weaker studies changes conclusions.
Meta-analysis involves the
computation of an effect size index (which quantifies the magnitude of
relationship between the independent and dependent variables) for every study
in the sample, and averaging across studies.
In meta-analyses, a fail-safe
number can be calculated to estimate the number of studies with
nonsignificant results that would be needed to reverse the conclusion of a
significant effect.
In narrative reviews, integration
might use a procedure known as the voting method (tallying outcomes to
see which outcome had greatest empirical support if there are inconsistencies),
or might be done in a strictly narrative fashion, with a qualitative analysis
of patterns in the data .
Give your opinion if have any.