Implementation of evidence-based medicine: evaluation of the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness programme.

S Dopson, L Locock, D Chambers, J Gabbay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness (PACE) programme, which sought to implement clinically effective practice in 16 local sites. METHODS: 182 semi-structured interviews, usually by telephone, with project team members, clinicians, and senior managers and representatives from the Department of Health and the King's Fund. RESULTS: The most influential factors were strong evidence, supportive opinion leaders and integration within a committed organization; without these factors, projects had little chance of success. Other factors (context analysis, professional involvement and good project management) emerged as important, supporting processes; their presence might be an additional help, but on their own they would not be enough to initiate change. A serious problem with any of them could have a strong adverse impact. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no simple formula for the factors that ensure successful implementation of research-based improvements to clinical practice, certain principles do seem to help. Time and resource need to be devoted to a period of local negotiation and adaptation of good research evidence based on a careful understanding of the local context, in which opinion leader influence is an important component of a well managed and preferably well integrated process of change.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)23-31
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Health Services Research & Policy
Volume6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2001

Fingerprint

Evidence-Based Medicine
Negotiating
Research
Statistical Factor Analysis
Interviews
Health

Cite this

Implementation of evidence-based medicine: evaluation of the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness programme. / Dopson, S; Locock, L; Chambers, D; Gabbay, J.

In: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, Vol. 6, 01.01.2001, p. 23-31.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9f2ac619f82640d09d54dba620b4e00d,
title = "Implementation of evidence-based medicine: evaluation of the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness programme.",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness (PACE) programme, which sought to implement clinically effective practice in 16 local sites. METHODS: 182 semi-structured interviews, usually by telephone, with project team members, clinicians, and senior managers and representatives from the Department of Health and the King's Fund. RESULTS: The most influential factors were strong evidence, supportive opinion leaders and integration within a committed organization; without these factors, projects had little chance of success. Other factors (context analysis, professional involvement and good project management) emerged as important, supporting processes; their presence might be an additional help, but on their own they would not be enough to initiate change. A serious problem with any of them could have a strong adverse impact. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no simple formula for the factors that ensure successful implementation of research-based improvements to clinical practice, certain principles do seem to help. Time and resource need to be devoted to a period of local negotiation and adaptation of good research evidence based on a careful understanding of the local context, in which opinion leader influence is an important component of a well managed and preferably well integrated process of change.",
author = "S Dopson and L Locock and D Chambers and J Gabbay",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1258/1355819011927161",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "23--31",
journal = "Journal of Health Services Research & Policy",
issn = "1355-8196",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implementation of evidence-based medicine: evaluation of the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness programme.

AU - Dopson, S

AU - Locock, L

AU - Chambers, D

AU - Gabbay, J

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness (PACE) programme, which sought to implement clinically effective practice in 16 local sites. METHODS: 182 semi-structured interviews, usually by telephone, with project team members, clinicians, and senior managers and representatives from the Department of Health and the King's Fund. RESULTS: The most influential factors were strong evidence, supportive opinion leaders and integration within a committed organization; without these factors, projects had little chance of success. Other factors (context analysis, professional involvement and good project management) emerged as important, supporting processes; their presence might be an additional help, but on their own they would not be enough to initiate change. A serious problem with any of them could have a strong adverse impact. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no simple formula for the factors that ensure successful implementation of research-based improvements to clinical practice, certain principles do seem to help. Time and resource need to be devoted to a period of local negotiation and adaptation of good research evidence based on a careful understanding of the local context, in which opinion leader influence is an important component of a well managed and preferably well integrated process of change.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness (PACE) programme, which sought to implement clinically effective practice in 16 local sites. METHODS: 182 semi-structured interviews, usually by telephone, with project team members, clinicians, and senior managers and representatives from the Department of Health and the King's Fund. RESULTS: The most influential factors were strong evidence, supportive opinion leaders and integration within a committed organization; without these factors, projects had little chance of success. Other factors (context analysis, professional involvement and good project management) emerged as important, supporting processes; their presence might be an additional help, but on their own they would not be enough to initiate change. A serious problem with any of them could have a strong adverse impact. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no simple formula for the factors that ensure successful implementation of research-based improvements to clinical practice, certain principles do seem to help. Time and resource need to be devoted to a period of local negotiation and adaptation of good research evidence based on a careful understanding of the local context, in which opinion leader influence is an important component of a well managed and preferably well integrated process of change.

U2 - 10.1258/1355819011927161

DO - 10.1258/1355819011927161

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 23

EP - 31

JO - Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

JF - Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

SN - 1355-8196

ER -