Health services research has emerged as a tool for decision makers to make services more effective and efficient. While its value as a basis for decision making is well established, the incorporation of such evidence into decision making remains inconsistent. To this end, strengthening collaborative relationships between researchers and healthcare decision makers has been identified as a significant strategy for putting research evidence into practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SteinwachsD. Health services research: Its scope and significance. In: FormanP, editor. Promoting health services research in academic health centers. Washington (DC): Association of Academic Health Centers; 1991: p. 23–72.
2.
OxmanAThompsonMDavisDHaynesR. No magic bullets: A systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. Canadian Medical Association Journal1995; 153: 1423–31.
3.
BrookR. Using scientific information to improve quality of healthcare. Annals of the New York Academy of Science1993; 703: 74–85.
4.
KellyJToeppM. Practice parameters: Development, evaluation, dissemination, and implementation. Quality Review Bulletin1992; 405–409.
5.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.Effective healthcare: Getting evidence into practice. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press; 1999.
6.
FunkSTornquistEChampagneM. Barriers and facilitators of research utilization. Nursing Clinics of North America1995; 30: 395–407.
7.
MittmanBToneskXJacobsonP. Implementing clinical practice guidelines: Social influence strategies and practitioner behaviour change. Quality Review Bulletin1992; 17: 457–466.
8.
LomasJ. Retailing research: Increasing the role of evidence in clinical services for childbirth. The Millbank Quarterly1993; 71: 439–475.
9.
FunkSChampagneMTornquistEWieseR. Administrators' views on barriers to research utilization. Applied Nursing Research1995; 8: 44–49.
10.
AlkinMDaillakRWhiteP. Using evaluations: Does evaluation make a difference?Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications; 1979.
11.
TranmerJSquiresSBrazilKGerlachJJohnsonJMusinerD. Evidence based decision making: What works and what doesn't work. Report submitted to the National Forum on Health, 1996.
12.
PattonM. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1997.
13.
WeissC. Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1998.
14.
HendriksMHandleyE. Improving the recommendations from evaluation studies. Evaluation and Program Planning1990; 13: 109–117.
15.
SmithM. Evaluation utilization revisited. In: McLaughlinJWeberLCovertRIngleR, editors. Evaluation utilization. New directions for program evaluation, no. 39. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1988: p. 7–19.
16.
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation.1999 annual report. Ottawa: The Foundation; 1999.
17.
SellorsJMitchellC. Restructuring health services delivery research: A community-based model. Clinical Investigative Medicine1998; 21: 201–208.
18.
WrightR. Community-oriented primary care. The corner stone of healthcare reform. Journal of the American Medical Association1993; 269: 2544–7.
19.
AlexanderGClancyC. Practice-based research: Laboratories for healthcare reform. Journal of Family Practice1994; 38: 428–430.
20.
ClintonJ. From the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research. Journal of the American Medical Association1993; 270: 1405.
21.
NuttingPClanceyCFrankP. The need for expanded capacity in primary care research. Journal of the American Medical Association1993; 270: 1449–53.
22.
InuiT. Reform in medical education: A health of the public perspective. Academic Medicine1996; 71(1): S119–S121.
23.
SchroderSJonesJShowstackJ. Academic medicine as a public trust. Journal of the American Medical Association1989; 262: 803–812.
24.
EvansJ. The health of the public approach to medical education. Academic Medicine1992; 719–723.
25.
ValbergLGonyeaMSinclairDWadeJ. Planning the future academic medical centre: Conceptual framework and financial design. Canadian Medical Association Journal1994; 151(11): 1581–7.
26.
MacLeodS. McCullough H. Social science education as a component of medical training. Social Science and Medicine1994; 39(9): 1367–1373.
27.
LomasJ. Improving research dissemination and uptake in the health sector: Beyond the sound of one hand clapping. Health Policy Commentary Series. No. C9701. Hamilton: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University; 1997.
28.
AttkissonCHargravesA. A conceptual model for program evaluation in health organizations. In: SchulbergHBakerF, editors. Program evaluation in the health fields. Volume II. New York: Human Services Press; 1979.
29.
LoveA. Internal evaluation: Building organizations from within. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications; 1991.
30.
SonnichsenR. High impact internal evaluation: A practitioner's guide to evaluating and consulting inside organizations. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications; 2000.
31.
WhiteJLeskeJPearcyJ. Models and processes of research utilization. Nursing Clinics of North America1995; 30(3): 409–420.
32.
DobbinsMCiliskaDDiCensoD. Dissemination and use of research evidence for policy and practice: A framework for developing, implementing and evaluating strategies. A report prepared for the Dissemination and Utilization Model Advisory Committee of the Canadian Nurses' Association and Health Canada, 1998.
33.
HubermanM. Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study. American Educational Research Journal1990; 27(2): 363–391.
34.
WeissC. Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis1977; 3(4): 15–28.
35.
LevitanLHughesE. Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review1981; 5(4): 525–548.
36.
RichR. Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats. In: WeissC, editor. Using social research for public policy making. Lexington (MA): DC Heath; 1977.
37.
FlorioDBehrmanMGoltzD. What do policy makers think of educational research and evaluation? Or do they?Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis1979; 1: 68–88.
38.
GitlinLLyonsKKolodnerE. A model to build collaborative research or educational teams of health professionals in gerontology. Educational Gerontology1994; 20: 15–34.
39.
BrazilK. A framework for developing evaluation capacity in healthcare settings. International Journal of Healthcare Quality Assurance1999; 12(1): 6–11.
40.
PranulisM. Research programs in a clinical setting. Western Journal of Nursing Research1991; 13(2): 274–277.
41.
LohfeldLBrazilK. Understanding the collaborative experience between researchers and healthcare practitioners: Implications for gerontological nursing practice. Educational Gerontology2000; 26: 1–13.
