Health Policy PhD Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Feb 18;18(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0530-2.
Decision-makers in crisis zones are faced with the challenge of having to make health-related decisions under limited time and resource constraints and in light of the many factors that can influence their decisions, of which research evidence is just one. To address a key gap in the research literature about how best to support the use of research evidence in such situations, we conducted a critical interpretive synthesis approach to develop a conceptual framework that outlines the strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones.
We systematically reviewed both empirical and non-empirical literature and used an interpretive analytic approach to synthesise the results and develop the conceptual framework. We used a 'compass' question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SSCI and Web of Science. A second reviewer was assigned to a representative sample of articles. We purposively sampled additional papers to fill in conceptual gaps.
We identified 21 eligible papers to be analysed and purposively sampled an additional 6 to fill conceptual gaps. The synthesis resulted in a conceptual framework that focuses on evidence use in crisis zones examined through the lens of four systems - political, health, international humanitarian aid and health research. Within each of the four systems, the framework identifies the most actionable strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use.
This study presents a new conceptual framework that outlines strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones within different systems. This study expands on the literature pertaining to evidence-informed decision-making.
危机地区的决策者面临着在有限的时间和资源限制下做出与健康相关的决策的挑战,并且需要考虑许多可能影响其决策的因素,而研究证据只是其中之一。为了解决研究文献中关于如何在这种情况下最好地支持使用研究证据的一个关键空白,我们采用批判解释性综合方法来制定一个概念框架,概述了在危机地区利用促进因素和解决证据使用障碍的策略。
我们系统地审查了实证和非实证文献,并采用解释性分析方法综合结果和制定概念框架。我们使用“指南针”问题制定了详细的搜索策略,并在 CINAHL、EMBASE、MEDLINE、SSCI 和 Web of Science 中进行了电子搜索。指派了第二名审查员对代表性的文章样本进行审查。我们有目的地抽样了其他论文来填补概念上的空白。
我们确定了 21 篇符合条件的论文进行分析,并有目的地抽样了另外 6 篇论文来填补概念上的空白。综合结果形成了一个概念框架,该框架通过政治、卫生、国际人道主义援助和卫生研究四个系统来审视危机地区的证据使用。在每个系统中,该框架确定了利用促进因素和解决证据使用障碍的最可行策略。
本研究提出了一个新的概念框架,概述了在不同系统中利用促进因素和解决证据使用障碍的策略。本研究扩展了关于循证决策的文献。