Boissel Jean-Pierre, Nony Patrice, Amsallem Emmanuel, Mercier Catherine, Estève Jacques, Cucherat Michel
Centre de Recherche en Ingénierie des Connaissances Appliquée à la Thérapeutique (CRIC@T), Service de Pharmacologie Clinique/EA3637, Faculté de Médecine RTH Laennec, Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, Cedex 08, France.
Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2005 Oct;19(5):591-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2005.00352.x.
Since the early 1980s many studies showed a gap between available evidence and medical practice. They were designed to assess the real impact of randomized clinical trials on the practice of medicine. Their results substantiated a knowledge translation problem. However, they were qualitative findings, i.e. a gap exists or not, although the problem is quantitative (how large is the gap?) and has several components that should be documented according to the objective of the study. In this article, we explored the components and the various contexts in which the measure of the distance between practice and knowledge is considered. All these features should be taken into account for a more accurate and relevant assessment of the distance.
自20世纪80年代初以来,许多研究表明现有证据与医学实践之间存在差距。这些研究旨在评估随机临床试验对医学实践的实际影响。其结果证实了知识转化问题。然而,这些都是定性研究结果,即只是表明差距是否存在,而该问题是定量的(差距有多大?),并且有几个组成部分,应根据研究目的进行记录。在本文中,我们探讨了实践与知识之间距离衡量所涉及的组成部分和各种背景。为了更准确、更相关地评估这种距离,所有这些特征都应予以考虑。