Transcript
1Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Chapter 19
Evidence Synthesis and Strategies for Evidence-Based Practice
2Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
EBP and Best Research Evidence
Evidence-based practice (EBP)—the conscientious integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values and needs in delivery of quality, cost-effective health care
Best research evidence Conduct and synthesis of available research
studies in an area
3Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Benefits and Barriers Related to Evidence-Based Nursing Practice Some nursing interventions are evidence-
based or supported by best research knowledge; others are under-researched
Some nurses readily use research-based interventions, and others are slower to make changes
Some clinical agencies are supportive of EBP; others have limited support for EBP process
4Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Benefits of Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing
Greatest—improved outcomes for patients, providers, and healthcare agencies
Research syntheses provide basis for developing evidence-based guidelines for practice (gold standard for patient care)
Magnet status through American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC)
5Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Quality Care, as Defined by ANCC
Current literature is available, disseminated, used to change practice
Nurses are involved in human subjects committee work
Research consultants shape nursing research infrastructure, capacity, mentorship
Budget line items for allocation and utilization of resources for nursing research
6Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Quality Care, as Defined by ANCC (Cont’d)
Ongoing nursing research activities are compiled and documented
Education and mentoring activities engage staff nurses in research, EBP
Resources are available to support participation in nursing research, utilization
7Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Barriers of Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing
Lack of research evidence available regarding effectiveness of many nursing interventions
EBP requires synthesizing research evidence from experimental or quasi-experimental research Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Other interventions studies
8Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Barriers of Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing (Cont’d)
Bolton, Donaldson, Rutledge, Bennett, and Brown (2007) Reviewed of systematic/integrative reviews and
meta-analyses Limited association found between nursing
interventions/ processes and patient outcomes in acute care settings
A concern—the “one size fits all” application mindset
9Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Barriers of Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing (Cont’d)
Best research evidence Generated mainly from experimental and quasi-
experimental research Limited focus on contributions of descriptive-
correlational studies, qualitative research, mixed-methods studies, and theories
Concern over “cookbook” approach Lack of support from healthcare
agencies/administrators
10Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Guidelines for Synthesizing Research Evidence
EBP organizational websites for nurses (e.g. Cochrane Collaboration Library, Joanne Briggs Institute)
11Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Guidelines for Implementing and Evaluating Systematic Reviews
Structured, comprehensive synthesis of research literature
Intent: determine best research evidence available
Identify, locate, appraise, synthesize quality research evidence
Often two or more researchers 10-step process
12Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 1: Formulate a Relevant Clinical Question to Direct the Review
PICO(S) often used to develop a relevant clinical question to guide review
P—Population or participants of interest I—Intervention C—Comparisons of the intervention with
control, placebo, standard care, variations of the same intervention, or different therapies
O—Outcome (desired) S—Study design
13Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 2: State the Purpose and Objectives or Aims of the Review
Identifies major goal or focus of the review “To collate, to present evidence, to analyze
____________”
14Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 3: Identify the Literature Search Criteria and Strategies
Identify inclusion/exclusion criteria to direct search
Search often excludes “gray literature”—limited-distribution items, such as theses, dissertations
15Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 4: Conduct a Comprehensive Search of the Research Literature
Provide extensive focused search Document exactly what was found where,
and through which database
16Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 5: Selection of Studies for Review
Whatever databases are used, expect duplications
Even if references are searched, expect eventual exhaustion of leads
Retrieve full-text citations Enter into a table and make notes
17Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Flow Diagram of Selection Process
18Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Four Phases of Selection
Identify sources Screen sources based on set criteria Determine whether sources meet eligibility
requirements Edit down to final list
19Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 6: Critical Appraisal of the Studies Included in Review
Initial brief critical appraisal Thorough critical appraisal after list is
finalized Two or more experts should independently
review and judge studies’ quality Studies often rank-ordered, based
contribution level
20Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 7: Conduct a Meta-analysis if Appropriate
Usually provides strong, objective information about effectiveness of intervention or solid knowledge about a clinical problem
21Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 8: Results of the Review
Tabular form often useful Items in table might include authors, year,
title, journal (or other source), design, sample, variables, measurement method, major finding, level of significance
22Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 9: Discussion Section of the Review
Overall evaluation of types of interventions implemented and outcomes measured
Methodological issues or limitations of review Theoretical basis Recommendations
23Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Step 10: Development of the Final Report for Publication
Title identifying systematic review or meta-analysis
Include abstract identifying: background, purpose, data sources, review methods, results, and conclusions
Body of the report: content discussed in previous nine steps
Checklist: http://www.prisma-statement.org
24Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Critical Appraisal of a Published Systematic Review
Checklist Table 19-2 Provide comments/rational for appraised
strengths/limitations of review Currency of literature synthesis important
Obsolete in 1 to 10 years, depending on extent of literature
25Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Conducting Meta-analyses to Synthesize Research Evidence
Considered high-level evidence Needs to be homogeneous—same general
population, intervention, variables Statistically combines data from several
studies Results in a large sample size Increased power Used to determine true effect of specific
intervention on a particular outcome
26Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Conducting Meta-analyses to Synthesize Research Evidence (Cont’d)
Goal is to determine if an intervention Significantly improves outcomes Has minimal/no effect on outcomes Actually increases risk of adverse events
Effective way to Average conflicting study findings and controversies
Results in some sort of overall impression
27Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Downsides to Meta-analysis
Rare to find same-population, same-intervention studies for pooling
Uses “second-hand” data If information is incomplete or flawed, meta-
analysis is flawed
28Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Clinical Question for Meta-analysis
“What is the effectiveness of a selected intervention?”
PICOS format could be used to generate the clinical question
29Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Purpose and Questions to Direct Meta-analysis
Cochrane Collaboration identified four basic questions: What is the direction of effect? What is the size of effect? Is the effect consistent across studies? What is the strength of evidence for the effect?
30Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Search Criteria and Strategies for Meta-analyses
Methods similar to those for systematic reviews
Search is for similar-method studies Goal is meaningful pooled data
31Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Possible Biases for Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews
Publication Time-lag Location bias Citation bias Language bias Outcome reporting bias
32Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Funnel Plot
Used to assess for biases in a group of studies
Provide graphic representations of possible effect sizes (ESs) or odds ratios (ORs) for interventions in selected studies
33Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Results of Meta-Analysis for Continuous Outcomes
If continuous outcomes are measured in all studies (ratio or interval data) May calculate weighted average of outcomes Answers the question, “Was there a change?” Standardized mean difference Disadvantage: conclusion will be “on average,
there was a change” (can mean next to nothing)
34Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Results of Meta-Analysis for Dichotomous Outcomes
Dichotomous outcomes (Yes-No) Can be characterized as (Yes, improved, and No,
not improved) Risk ratios, odds ratios, and risk difference
usually calculated to determine effect of intervention on measured outcome
35Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Risk Ratio or Relative Risk (RR)
36Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Odds Ratio (OR)
“The likelihood of…..”
37Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Risk Difference (RD)
Absolute risk reduction Risk of an event in experimental group minus
risk of the event in control or standard care group
38Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Forest Plot
39Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Forest Plot (Cont’d)
The black diamond in the plot is the summary of effect of all studies
If the diamond is left of the vertical line that is positioned at 1, then the results favor intervention or treatment
40Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Conducting Meta-synthesis of Qualitative Research
Systematic review/formal integration of findings from qualitative studies
Still in developmental phase Variety of synthesis methods: meta-synthesis,
meta-ethnography, meta-study, meta-narrative, qualitative metasummary, qualitative meta-analysis, aggregated analysis
41Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Conducting Meta-synthesis of Qualitative Research (Cont’d)
No agreement about method to use, or if one method is enough to accomplish purpose
Cochrane Collaboration Cochrane Qualitative Methods Group
42Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Meta-synthesis
Most prevalent method for at least the past 10 years
The systematic compiling/integration of qualitative results
Like telling a story about a group of stories Metasummary
43Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Framing a Meta-synthesis Exercise
Providing a focus, and defining scope of exercise
Difficult to accomplish
44Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Searching the Literature and Selecting Sources
No different from quantitative meta-analyses when there is not much literature
All sources acceptable May choose like-methods research
45Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Appraisal of Studies and Analysis of Data
Use critical appraisal guidelines in text Various recurrent themes/essences either
noted or tallied Comparative analysis
46Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Discussion of Meta-synthesis Findings
May result in a larger number of themes If grounded theory, could result in the
beginnings of the theory Report often concludes with
recommendations for further research and possibly implications for practice, policy development
47Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Mixed-methods Systematic Reviews
Includes only quantitative, of mixed types, or both quantitative and qualitative
Used when there is a shortage of single-method studies
No definitive results can be obtained Multilevel synthesis Parallel synthesis
48Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Models to Promote Evidence-based Practice in Nursing
Stetler model: facilitate EBP The Iowa model: promote quality of care
49Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Stetler Model of Research Utilization
Developed by Stetler and Marram in 1976 Expanded/refined by Stetler in 1994 and 2001 Institutional level: synthesized research knowledge
used to develop/update protocols, algorithms, policies, procedures, or other formal programs
Individual level: those in leadership positions summarize research and use knowledge to influence educational programs, make practice decisions, impact political decision making
50Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Stetler Model of Research Utilization (Cont’d)
51Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Stetler Modelphase I: Preparation
Determining purpose, focus, potential outcomes of making an evidence-based change in a clinical agency
52Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Stetler Modelphase II: Validation
Research reports critically appraised to determine scientific soundness
53Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Stetler Modelphase III: Comparative Evaluation/Decision Making
Substantiation of evidence Fit with healthcare setting Feasibility of using research findings Concerns with current practice Benefits/risks assessed
Use it Consider it Don’t use it
54Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Stetler Modelphase IV: Translation/Application
Planning for/using research evidence in practice
Determining exactly what knowledge will be used/applied
55Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Stetler Modelphase IV: Translation/Application (Cont’d)
Three levels of application: Cognitive application Instrumental application Symbolic or political application
56Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Stetler Modelphase V: Evaluation
Evaluates effect of the evidence-based change on some kind of outcomes
Everything from satisfaction surveys through QI projects
57Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
IOWA Model of Evidence-Based Practice
Provides direction for development of EBP Formerly not EBP-focused but used evidence
when available Identifies triggers for change Evaluated/prioritized based on clinical agency
needs Best evidence is used
58Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Development of Evidence-Based Guidelines
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Panels address various patient problems Early topics were symptom management Literature review, when possible Published as booklets National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC)
59Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Evidence-based PracticeCenters (EPCs)
In 1997, AHRQ established 12 EPCs in Us and Canada
Develop evidence reports and technology assessments on healthcare organization and delivery issues
5-year contracts
60Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Introduction to Translational Research
An evolving concept Defined by the NIH as translation of basic
scientific discoveries into practical applications
For testing applications of basic research (with humans)
CTSA consortium
top related