Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, The Policy Institute, King's College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 22 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6LE, UK.
King's Business School, King's College London, 30 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG, UK.
Implement Sci. 2024 Feb 19;19(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01337-z.
The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of strategies have been developed to support the implementation of research into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to update and extend two previous reviews of systematic reviews of strategies designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice.
We developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the previous reviews to identify studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. The search was performed in June 2022 in four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a quality assessment checklist. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. Data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.
We identified 32 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2022. The reviews are mainly of multi-faceted interventions (n = 20) although there are reviews focusing on single strategies (ICT, educational, reminders, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, social media and toolkits). The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Furthermore, a lot of nuance lies behind these headline findings, and this is increasingly commented upon in the reviews themselves.
Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been identified. We need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of research perspectives (including social science) in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed.
研究结果与临床实践之间的差距已有充分记录,并且已经开发出多种策略来支持将研究成果应用于临床实践。本研究的目的是更新和扩展之前对旨在将研究证据转化为临床实践的策略进行的系统评价的两项综述。
我们根据之前的综述中使用的术语制定了全面的系统文献搜索策略,以确定明确研究旨在将研究证据转化为实践的干预措施的研究。该搜索于 2022 年 6 月在四个电子数据库中进行:Medline、Embase、Cochrane 和 Epistemonikos。我们从 2010 年 1 月到 2022 年 6 月进行了搜索,没有语言限制。两名独立的评审员使用质量评估清单评估纳入研究的质量。为了降低偏倚风险,在团队所有成员讨论后,排除了不符合要求的论文。使用描述性和叙述性技术对数据进行综合,以确定与干预策略、目标行为、研究环境和研究结果相关的主题和模式。
我们确定了 2010 年至 2022 年期间进行的 32 项综述。这些综述主要是针对多方面的干预措施(n=20),尽管也有针对单一策略的综述(信息通信技术、教育、提醒、当地意见领袖、审核和反馈、社交媒体和工具包)。大多数综述报告策略实现了较小的影响(通常是在护理过程方面)。很少有证据表明这些策略改变了患者的结局。此外,这些头条发现背后存在很多细微差别,这在评论本身中也越来越多地被提及。
结合之前的两项综述,共确定了 86 项旨在增加将研究应用于临床实践的策略的系统评价。我们需要将重点从孤立的单一和多方面的干预措施转移到更好地理解和建立更具情境性、关系性和组织性的能力,以支持在临床实践中使用研究。这将需要在原始研究中借鉴更广泛的研究视角(包括社会科学),并使所进行的综合多样化,包括现实主义综合等方法,以促进对策略实施背景的探索。