How do health care organizations take on best practices? A scoping literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aims of this scoping literature review are to examine and summarize the organizational-level factors, context, and processes that influence the use of evidence-based practice in healthcare organizations. METHODS: A scoping literature review was done to answer the question: What is known from the existing empirical literature about factors, context, and processes that influence the uptake, implementation, and sustainability of evidence-based practice in healthcare organizations? This review used the Arksey and O'Malley framework to describe findings and to identify gaps in the existing research literature. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to screen studies. Relevant studies published between January 1991 and March 2014 were identified using four electronic databases. Study abstracts were screened for eligibility by two reviewers. Following this screening process, full-text articles were reviewed to determine the eligibility of the studies by the primary author. Eligible studies were then analyzed by coding findings with descriptive labels to distinguish elements that appeared relevant to this literature review. Coding was used to form categories, and these categories led to the development of themes. RESULTS: Thirty studies met the eligibility criteria for this literature review. The themes identified were: the process organizations use to select evidence-based practices for adoption, use of a needs assessment, linkage to the organization's strategic direction, organizational culture, the organization's internal social networks, resources (including education and training, presence of information technology, financial resources, resources for patient care, and staff qualifications), leadership, the presence of champions, standardization of processes, role clarity of staff, and the presence of social capital. CONCLUSION: Several gaps were identified by this review. There is a lack of research on how evidence-based practices may be sustained by organizations. Most of the research done to date has been cross-sectional. Longitudinal research would give insight into the relationship between organizational characteristics and the uptake, implementation, and sustainability of evidence-based practice. In addition, although it is clear that financial resources are required to implement evidence-based practice, existing studies contain a lack of detail about the cost of adopting and using new practices. This scoping review contains a number of implications for healthcare administrators, managers, and providers to consider when adopting and implementing evidence-based practices in healthcare organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.112 | 0.303 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.042 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".