Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study.
Evidence synthesis
Evidence-based research
Monitoring
Research methodology
Research value
Research waste
Systematic reviews
Journal
Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1878-5921
Titre abrégé: J Clin Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801383
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2024
Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
15
08
2023
revised:
22
12
2023
accepted:
03
01
2024
pubmed:
8
1
2024
medline:
8
1
2024
entrez:
7
1
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods. We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions. Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring. Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38185190
pii: S0895-4356(24)00002-7
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111247
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
111247Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare.