ENGAGING CLINICIANS IN EVIDENCE-BASED DISINVESTMENT: ROLE AND PERCEPTIONS OF EVIDENCE

Amber M. Watt · Cameron David Willis · Katherine Hodgetts · Adam G. Elshaug · Janet E. Hiller

20 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Clinical practice guidelines implementation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine how evidence from systematic review (SR) is perceived and negotiated by expert stakeholders in considering a technology for potential disinvestment. METHODS: An evidence-informed stakeholder engagement examined results from a diagnostic accuracy SR of vitamin B12 and folate tests. Pathologists deliberated around the SR findings to generate an informed contribution to future policy for the funding of B12 and folate tests. Deliberations were transcribed and subject to qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Pathologists did not engage with findings from the SR in depth; rather they sought to contest the terms of the problem driving the review and attempted to reframe it. Pathologists questioned the usefulness of SR outcomes given the variable definitions of B12 deficiency and deferred addressing disinvestment options specifically pertaining to B12 testing. However, folate testing was proffered as a potential disinvestment candidate, based upon pathologists' definition of "appropriate" evidence beyond the bounds of the SR. CONCLUSIONS: The value of SR to informing disinvestment deliberations by expert stakeholders may be a function of timing as well as content. Engagement of stakeholders in co-produced evidence may be required at two levels: (i) Early in the synthesis phase to help shape the SR and harmonize expert views with the available evidence (including gaps); (ii) Collaboration in primary research to fill evidence-gaps thus supporting evidence-based disinvestment. Without this, information asymmetry between clinically engaged experts and decision makers may preclude the collaborative, informed, and technical discussions required to generate productive policy change.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

References

2006Using thematic analysis in psychology 2001Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis 2005Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field 2002Evidence-based Policy: The Promise of `Realist Synthesis'2005Quality, Innovation, and Value for Money 2003Evidence-based health policy: problems and possibilities.2009Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money 2001Analysing masculinity: interpretatative repertoires, subject positions and ideological dilemmas

Cited by

2013HEALTH TECHNOLOGY REASSESSMENT: THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.