High expectation in non-evidence-based smoking cessation interventions among smokers--the CoLaus study.

To assess the preferred methods to quit smoking among current smokers. Cross-sectional, population-based study conducted in Lausanne between 2003 and 2006 including 988 current smokers. Preference was assessed by questionnaire. Evidence-based (EB) methods were nicotine replacement, bupropion, physician or group consultations; non-EB-based methods were acupuncture, hypnosis and autogenic training. EB methods were frequently (physician consultation: 48%, 95% confidence interval (45-51); nicotine replacement therapy: 35% (32-38)) or rarely (bupropion and group consultations: 13% (11-15)) preferred by the participants. Non-EB methods were preferred by a third (acupuncture: 33% (30-36)), a quarter (hypnosis: 26% (23-29)) or a seventh (autogenic training: 13% (11-15)) of responders. On multivariate analysis, women preferred both EB and non-EB methods more frequently than men (odds ratio and 95% confidence interval: 1.46 (1.10-1.93) and 2.26 (1.72-2.96) for any EB and non-EB method, respectively). Preference for non-EB methods was higher among highly educated participants, while no such relationship was found for EB methods. Many smokers are unaware of the full variety of methods to quit smoking. Better information regarding these methods is necessary.

Appropriateness of respiratory care: evidence-based guidelines.

PRINCIPLES: Respiratory care is universally recognised as useful, but its indications and practice vary markedly. In order to improve the appropriateness of respiratory care in our hospital, we developed evidence-based local guidelines in a collaborative effort involving physiotherapists, physicians and health service researchers. METHODS: Recommendations were developed using the standardised RAND appropriateness method. A literature search was conducted based on terms associated with guidelines and with respiratory care. A working group prepared proposals for recommendations which were then independently rated by a multidisciplinary expert panel. All recommendations were then discussed in common and indications for procedures were rated confidentially a second time by the experts. The recommendations were then formulated on the basis of the level of evidence in the literature and on the consensus among these experts. RESULTS: Recommendations were formulated for the following procedures: non-invasive ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure, intermittent positive pressure breathing, intrapulmonary percussive ventilation, mechanical insufflation-exsufflation, incentive spirometry, positive expiratory pressure, nasotracheal suctioning and non-instrumental airway clearance techniques. Each recommendation referred to a particular medical condition and was assigned to a hierarchical category based on the quality of the evidence from the literature supporting the recommendation and on the consensus among the experts. CONCLUSION: Despite a marked heterogeneity of scientific evidence, the method used allowed us to develop commonly agreed local guidelines for respiratory care. In addition, this work fostered a closer relationship between physiotherapists and physicians in our institution.

Lung transplantation for COPD - evidence-based?

Lung transplantation has now been performed for more than 30 years in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This disease is the major indication for lung transplantation, involving more than one third of the procedures worldwide. Although lung transplantation in COPD patients has clearly shown a positive impact on lung function, exercise capacity and quality of life, the survival benefit remains difficult to ascertain. Several methodological difficulties, particularly the absence of classical randomised studies, make the analysis especially challenging. There is however indirect but convincing evidence that lung transplantation can, when appropriate selection criteria are applied, provide not only an active post-transplant lifestyle but also a survival benefit for patients with COPD.

Barriers of evidence based policy making in iran's health system

La formation des sociétés fondées sur la connaissance, le progrès de la technologie de communications et un meilleur échange d'informations au niveau mondial permet une meilleure utilisation des connaissances produites lors des décisions prises dans le système de santé. Dans des pays en voie de développement, quelques études sont menées sur des obstacles qui empêchent la prise des décisions fondées sur des preuves (PDFDP) alors que des études similaires dans le monde développé sont vraiment rares. L'Iran est le pays qui a connu la plus forte croissance dans les publications scientifiques au cours de ces dernières années, mais la question qui se pose est la suivante : quels sont les obstacles qui empêchent l'utilisation de ces connaissances de même que celle des données mondiales? Cette étude embrasse trois articles consécutifs. Le but du premier article a été de trouver un modèle pour évaluer l'état de l'utilisation des connaissances dans ces circonstances en Iran à l’aide d'un examen vaste et systématique des sources suivie par une étude qualitative basée sur la méthode de la Grounded Theory. Ensuite au cours du deuxième et troisième article, les obstacles aux décisions fondées sur des preuves en Iran, sont étudiés en interrogeant les directeurs, les décideurs du secteur de la santé et les chercheurs qui travaillent à produire des preuves scientifiques pour la PDFDP en Iran. Après avoir examiné les modèles disponibles existants et la réalisation d'une étude qualitative, le premier article est sorti sous le titre de «Conception d'un modèle d'application des connaissances». Ce premier article sert de cadre pour les deux autres articles qui évaluent les obstacles à «pull» et «push» pour des PDFDP dans le pays. En Iran, en tant que pays en développement, les problèmes se situent dans toutes les étapes du processus de production, de partage et d’utilisation de la preuve dans la prise de décision du système de santé. Les obstacles qui existent à la prise de décision fondée sur des preuves sont divers et cela aux différents niveaux; les solutions multi-dimensionnelles sont nécessaires pour renforcer l'impact de preuves scientifiques sur les prises de décision. Ces solutions devraient entraîner des changements dans la culture et le milieu de la prise de décision afin de valoriser la prise de décisions fondées sur des preuves. Les critères de sélection des gestionnaires et leur nomination inappropriée ainsi que leurs remplaçants rapides et les différences de paiement dans les secteurs public et privé peuvent affaiblir la PDFDP de deux façons : d’une part en influant sur la motivation des décideurs et d'autre part en détruisant la continuité du programme. De même, tandis que la sélection et le remplacement des chercheurs n'est pas comme ceux des gestionnaires, il n'y a aucun critère pour encourager ces deux groupes à soutenir le processus décisionnel fondés sur des preuves dans le secteur de la santé et les changements ultérieurs. La sélection et la promotion des décideurs politiques devraient être basées sur leur performance en matière de la PDFDP et les efforts des universitaires doivent être comptés lors de leurs promotions personnelles et celles du rang de leur institution. Les attitudes et les capacités des décideurs et des chercheurs devraient être encouragés en leur donnant assez de pouvoir et d’habiliter dans les différentes étapes du cycle de décision. Cette étude a révélé que les gestionnaires n'ont pas suffisamment accès à la fois aux preuves nationales et internationales. Réduire l’écart qui sépare les chercheurs des décideurs est une étape cruciale qui doit être réalisée en favorisant la communication réciproque. Cette question est très importante étant donné que l'utilisation des connaissances ne peut être renforcée que par l'étroite collaboration entre les décideurs politiques et le secteur de la recherche. Dans ce but des programmes à long terme doivent être conçus ; la création des réseaux de chercheurs et de décideurs pour le choix du sujet de recherche, le classement des priorités, et le fait de renforcer la confiance réciproque entre les chercheurs et les décideurs politiques semblent être efficace.

Evidence-Based Practice in PubMed: Are Shared Filters Useful to Health Sciences Academic Users?

Objectives In April 2010, the Université de Montréal’s Health Sciences Library has implemented shared filters in its institutional PubMed account. Most of these filters are designed to highlight resources for evidence-based practice, such as Clinical Queries, Systematic Reviews and Evidence-based Synopsis. We now want to measure how those filters are perceived and used by our users. Methods For one month, data was gathered through an online questionnaire proposed to users of Université de Montréal’s PubMed account. A print version was also distributed to participants in information literacy workshops given by the health sciences librarians. Respondents were restricted to users affiliated to Université de Montréal’s faculties of Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Sciences, Nursing and Pharmacy. Basic user information such as year/program of study or department affiliation was also collected. The questionnaire allowed users to identify the filters they use, assess the relevance of filters, and also suggest new ones. Results Survey results showed that the shared filters of Université de Montreal’s PubMed account were found useful by the majority of respondents. Filters allowing rapid access to secondary resources ranked among the most relevant (Reviews, Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Practice Guidelines and Clinical Evidence). For Clinical Study Queries, Randomized Controlled Trial (Therapy/Narrow) was considered the most useful. Some new shared filters have been suggested by respondents. Finally, 18% of the respondents indicated that they did not quite understand the relevance of filters. Conclusion Based on the survey results, shared filters considered most useful will be kept, some will be enhanced and others removed so that suggested ones could be added. The fact that some respondents did not understand well the relevance of filters could potentially be addressed through our PubMed workshops, online library guides or by renaming some filters in a more meaningful way.

Can music therapy in medical contexts ever be evidence-based?

This essay seeks to consider some of the issues around evidencethat provide an ongoing challenge to the profession of music therapyto be vigilant and critical with regards the undertaking, butalso the appropriation or application, of research in our alliedhealth discipline. It is written in response to the statement that“medical music therapists need to continue to discuss and debateour views as to what constitutes knowledge, expertise and ‘evidence’in our profession.” (Edwards, 2002, p. 33). A critical perspectiveto current demands for evidence is provided, and the useof quantitative method as the basis for trustworthy research inmusic therapy is discussed. The paediatric medical context is themain site of professional research of the author, however, some ofthe points made will have relevance for other fields of clinicalservice.

Evidence-based librarianship: an overview

Objective: To demonstrate how the core characteristics of both evidence-based medicine (EBM) and evidence-based health care (EBHC) can be adapted to health sciences librarianship.

Pain relief for neonates in Australian hospitals: A need to improve evidence-based practice

Objective: To ascertain the extent to which neonatal analgesia was used in Australia for minor invasive procedures as an indicator of evidence-based practice in neonatology. Methods: A cross-sectional telephone survey of hospitals in all Australian states and territories with more than 200 deliveries per year was carried out. Questions were asked regarding awareness of the benefits and the use of analgesia for minor invasive procedures in term and near term neonates. Analysis was undertaken according to state and territory, annual birth numbers and the level of neonatal nursery care available. Results: Data were available from 212 of 214 eligible hospitals. Of the total respondents, 51% and 70% respectively were aware of the benefits of sucrose and breast-feeding for neonatal analgesia. Eleven per cent of units administered sucrose before venepuncture and 25% of units used breast-feeding. Ten per cent of units used sucrose before heel prick with 49% utilizing breast-feeding. Expressed breast milk was used in 10% of units. Analgesia was given less frequently before intravenous cannulation compared to venepuncture and heel prick. Awareness and implementation of neonatal analgesia varied widely in the states and territories. There was a trend for hospitals providing a higher level of neonatal care to have a greater awareness of sucrose as an analgesic (P < 0.0001) and the use of sucrose for venepuncture (P = 0.029), heel prick (P = 0.025) and intravenous catheter insertion (P = 0.013). Similar trends were found on analysis according to birth number of the maternity units. Smaller units had a greater usage of breast-feeding as an analgesic for heel prick (P = 0.017). Conclusion: Despite good evidence for the administration of sucrose and breast milk in providing effective analgesia for newborn infants, it is not widely used in Australia. It is imperative that the gap between research findings and clinical practice with regard to neonatal analgesia be addressed.

Expanding the evidence within evidence-based healthcare:thinking about the context, acceptability and feasibility of interventions

Evidence-based medicine is crucial to contemporary healthcare. It is dependent on systematic review methodology modelled on an arguably inadequate hierarchy of evidence. There has been a significant increase in medical and health research using qualitative and mixed method designs. The perspective taken in this article is that we need to broaden our evidence base if we are to fully take account of issues of context, acceptability and feasibility in the development and implementation of healthcare interventions. One way of doing this is to use a range of methods that better fit the different aspects of intervention development and implementation. Methods for the systematic review of evidence, other than randomised-controlled trials, are available and there is a readiness to incorporate these other types of evidence into good-practice guidance, but we need a clear methodology to translate these advances in research into the world of policy.

Developing a culture of enquiry to sustain evidence-based practice

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is having a significant effect on the health service environment. It constructs a language that bridges the healthcare disciplines and the clinical and managerial components of health services. Most experienced clinicians in nursing, medicine and allied health now recognise that the contemporary healthcare environment calls for our practice to be justified by sound, credible evidence. There is pressure on all clinicians to accommodate innovation, while at the same time ensuring their practice is effective, safe and efficient (Forbes & Griffiths 2002). Consequently, EBP in healthcare is having a profound effect on nursing and the way we think about nursing. There are many available models for research utilisation that are dependent on organisational strategies for change. This chapter describes the relationship between organisation and culture, and explores the notion of cultural change; that is, developing a culture of inquiry that can sustain evidence-based practice. We begin this chapter with a clear conception of what we mean by EBP and what we mean by ‘culture’.