Finding Time, Finding Evidence and Making Decisions: The Challenges of Evidence-Based Practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
No AccessPerspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language DisordersArticle1 Apr 2007Finding Time, Finding Evidence and Making Decisions: The Challenges of Evidence-Based Practice Tammy Hopper Tammy Hopper University of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta Canada Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/nnsld17.1.11 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Dickerson, S. S., Sackett, K., Jones, J. M., & Brewer, C. (2001). Guidelines for evaluating tools for clinical decision making.Nurse Educator, 26, 215–220. Google Scholar Finn, P. (2006, June 13). Bias and blinding: Self-fulfilling prophecies and intentional ignorance.The ASHA Leader, 11(8), 16–17, 22. Google Scholar Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine. London: British Medical Journal Press. Google Scholar G. Guyatt, & D. Rennie (Eds.). (2002). Users’ guide to the medical literature: A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: American Medical Association Press. Google Scholar Law, M. (2002). Introduction to evidence-based practice.In M. Law (Ed.), Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (pp. 1–12). Thoro-fare, NJ: SLACK. Google Scholar McKibbon, A. (1999). Evidence-based principles and practice. Hamilton, ON: B.C. Decker. Google Scholar Miller, R. G., Rosenberg, J. A., Gelinas, D. F., Mitsumoto, H., Newman, D., Sufit, R., et al. (1999). Practice parameter: The care of the patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (an evidence-based review) [Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology]. Neurology, 52, 1311–1323. Google Scholar Nelson, P., & Goffman, L. (2006, May 2). Primer on research: Developing a research question.The ASHA Leader, 11(6), 15, 26. Google Scholar Oller, D. K. (2006, Nov. 7). Primer on research: Interpretation of correlation. The ASHA Leader, 11(15), 24–26. Google Scholar Pollock, N., & Rochon, S. (2002). Becoming an evidence-based practitioner.In M. Law (Ed.), Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (pp. 31–46). Thorofare, NJ: SLACK. Google Scholar Porzsolt, F., Ohletz, A., Gardner, D., Ruatti, H., Meier, H., Scholtz-Gorton, N., & Schrott, L. (2003). Evidence-based decision making— The 6-step approach..British Medical Journal, November/December, A-11-A-12. Google Scholar Rappolt, S., & Tassone, M. (2002). How rehabilitation therapists gather, evaluate, and implement new knowledge..The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 22, 170–180. Google Scholar Rycroft-Malone, J., Seers, K., Titchen, A., Harvey, G., Kitson, A., & McCormack, B. (2004). What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice?.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(1), 81–90. Google Scholar Sackett, D. L, Rosenberg, W. M. C.Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t..British Medical Journal, 312(13), 71–72. Google Scholar Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. London, UK: Churchill Livingstone. Google Scholar Schuele, C. M., & Justice, L. M. (2006, Aug. 15). The importance of effect sizes in the interpretation of research. The ASHA Leader, 11(10), 14–15, 26–27. Google Scholar Scott-Findlay, S., & Pollock, C. (2004). Evidence, research, knowledge: A call for conceptual clarity..World Views on Evidence-Based Nursing, 1(2), 92–97. Google Scholar Thompson, C., McCaughan, D., Cullum, N., Sheldon,T. A., Mulhall, A., & Thompson, D. R. (2001). Research information in nurses’ clinical decision-making: what is useful?.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36(3), 376–388. Google Scholar World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Google Scholar Zipoli, R. P., & Kennedy, M. (2005). Evidence-based practice among speech-language pathologists: Attitudes, utilization, and barriers..American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14(3), 208–220. LinkGoogle Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology29:2 (688-704)8 May 2020What Does Evidence-Based Practice Mean to You? A Follow-Up Study Examining School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Evidence-Based PracticeKatrina Fulcher-Rood, Anny Castilla-Earls and Jeff Higginbotham Volume 17Issue 1April 2007Pages: 11-14 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Apr 1, 2007 Metrics Downloaded 32 times Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & Permissions© 2007 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».