Suppr超能文献

英国国民保健制度中的循证委托:谁使用哪些证据来源?2010/2011 年调查。

Evidence-based commissioning in the English NHS: who uses which sources of evidence? A survey 2010/2011.

机构信息

Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2013 May 28;3(5):e002714. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002714.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To investigate types of evidence used by healthcare commissioners when making decisions and whether decisions were influenced by commissioners' experience, personal characteristics or role at work.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of 345 National Health Service (NHS) staff members.

SETTING

The study was conducted across 11 English Primary Care Trusts between 2010 and 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 440 staff involved in commissioning decisions and employed at NHS band 7 or above were invited to participate in the study. Of those, 345 (78%) completed all or a part of the survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants were asked to rate how important different sources of evidence (empirical or practical) were in a recent decision that had been made. Backwards stepwise logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the contributions of age, gender and professional background, as well as the years of experience in NHS commissioning, pay grade and work role.

RESULTS

The extent to which empirical evidence was used for commissioning decisions in the NHS varied according to the professional background. Only 50% of respondents stated that clinical guidelines and cost-effectiveness evidence were important for healthcare decisions. Respondents were more likely to report use of empirical evidence if they worked in Public Health in comparison to other departments (p<0.0005, commissioning and contracts OR   0.32, 95%CI   0.18 to 0.57, finance OR  0.19, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.78, other departments OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.71) or if they were female (OR 1.8 95% CI 1.01 to 3.1) rather than male. Respondents were more likely to report use of practical evidence if they were more senior within the organisation (pay grade 8b or higher OR 2.7, 95%CI 1.4 to 5.3, p=0.004 in comparison to lower pay grades).

CONCLUSIONS

Those trained in Public Health appeared more likely to use external empirical evidence while those at higher pay scales were more likely to use practical evidence when making commissioning decisions. Clearly, National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance and government publications (eg, National Service Frameworks) are important for decision-making, but practical sources of evidence such as local intelligence, benchmarking data and expert advice are also influential. New Clinical Commissioning Groups will need a variety of different evidence sources and expert involvement to ensure that effective decisions are made for their populations.

摘要

目的

调查医疗保健决策者在做出决策时使用的证据类型,以及决策是否受到决策者经验、个人特征或工作角色的影响。

设计

对 345 名英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)工作人员进行的横断面调查。

地点

2010 年至 2011 年期间,在 11 个英国初级保健信托基金会进行了这项研究。

参与者

共邀请了 440 名参与决策和受雇于 NHS 7 级或以上的工作人员参与研究。其中,345 名(78%)完成了全部或部分调查。

主要观察指标

参与者被要求对最近做出的决策中不同来源(经验或实践)的证据的重要性进行评分。采用向后逐步逻辑回归分析评估年龄、性别和专业背景以及 NHS 委托经验、薪酬等级和工作角色的影响。

结果

NHS 中经验证据在医疗保健决策中的使用程度因专业背景而异。只有 50%的受访者表示临床指南和成本效益证据对医疗保健决策很重要。与其他部门相比,在公共卫生部门工作的受访者更有可能报告使用经验证据(p<0.0005,委托和合同 OR 0.32,95%CI 0.18 至 0.57,财政 OR 0.19,95%CI 0.05 至 0.78,其他部门 OR 0.35,95%CI 0.17 至 0.71),或者是女性(OR 1.8,95%CI 1.01 至 3.1)而不是男性。在组织中地位较高(薪酬等级 8b 或更高 OR 2.7,95%CI 1.4 至 5.3,p=0.004,与较低薪酬等级相比)的受访者更有可能报告使用实用证据。

结论

接受过公共卫生培训的人似乎更有可能使用外部经验证据,而薪酬较高的人在做出委托决策时更有可能使用实用证据。显然,国家临床卓越研究所(NICE)指南和政府出版物(如国家服务框架)对决策很重要,但当地情报、基准数据和专家建议等实用证据来源也具有影响力。新的临床委托小组将需要各种不同的证据来源和专家参与,以确保为其人群做出有效的决策。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/880b/3657651/e08a5485c1a1/bmjopen2013002714f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验