EDITORIAL
The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare – Quo Vadis? In an Editorial I wrote for the International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare in 2006,1 I reflected on the fundamental need to incorporate evidence into healthcare decisions made by medical practitioners, nurses and other healthcare professionals. Such information is often derived from high-quality, randomised, controlled clinical trials, which then needs to be systematically analysed and a determination made as to how useful the findings are before they are applied to the management of an individual patient. Although these processes create a platform for better clinical decision making, several authors have recently outlined a number of challenges, which undermine the potential for ‘evidence’ to improve health outcomes.2–4 Underpinning all of these issues is the cost of healthcare and how best evidence can be most effectively applied to clinical practice and health policy.2 The articles in this Journal have been traditionally grouped on the basis of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) model of Evidence-Based Healthcare, which comprises four major components: Healthcare Evidence Generation, Evidence Synthesis, Evidence Transfer and Evidence Utilisation.5 For example, in the previous issue of this Journal (under the category of Evidence Synthesis), Munn and Jordan6 reviewed ‘interventions to reduce anxiety, distress and the need for sedation in adult patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging’ and commented on the positive strategies which can assist in reducing these events. They also commented on the limitations of their review. Similarly, Si et al.,7 in a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of general practice-based health checks (also Evidence Synthesis), concluded that such health checks are associated with small, but statistically significant, outcomes. However, as their findings were based on a limited number of trials, they recommended that more evidence was required ‘before it is possible to determine the degree of effectiveness of health checks in general practice’.7 The authors also concluded that health checks carried out at work or in healthcare settings had no preventive health benefits. Evidence (knowledge) Transfer, on the contrary, is the act of transferring the synthesized knowledge to healthcare professionals and health systems using journals, other
publications, electronic media, and the like, whereas Evidence Utilisation relates to the implementation of evidence in practice.5 Many of the manuscripts that have been published in the International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare over the past 10 years have emphasized the need for evidence not simply being generated but also being effectively transferred and implemented into the practice setting. The frequent finding of systematic reviews, which state that ‘further research is required’, demonstrates the necessity to present the ‘best available’ evidence to inform the delivery of the best possible care. It is thus important that as a healthcare profession we continue to devise the most efficient ways to generate evidence and get the findings into practice. In the current issue of this Journal, Chang et al.8 examine ‘Evidence-based practice in the health and social services in China: developments, strategies, and challenges’ and conclude that EBP in the healthcare area has been developing faster than in the other fields they examined. In contrast, Cabilan et al.9 in the context of Evidence Utilisation report on the management of peripheral intravenous devices, whereas De Buck et al.10 provide a Commentary on ‘Use of evidence-based practice in an aid organisation: a proposal to deal with the variety in terminology and methodology’. Finally, Piso et al.11 examine the recommendations from clinical guidelines for routine antenatal infection screening and ask whether evidence matters? Another significant occurrence as of 2014 is the change in our publisher from ‘Wiley Blackwell’ to ‘Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins’ and the production of the journal exclusively in an electronic format. I look forward to this new relationship and the continued success of the International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. Emeritus Professor Derek B. Frewin AO Editor-in Chief Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide Correspondence: Derek B. Frewin, The Cardiac Clinic, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare ß 2014 University of Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute
1
©2014 University of Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
EDITORIAL
References 1. Frewin D. Evidence-based healthcare: the role of our journal. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2006; 4: 263. 2. Heneghan C, Godlee F. Where next for evidence based healthcare? BMJ 2013; 346: 766–7. 3. Spence D. Evidence based medicine is broken. BMJ 2014; 348: 22–3. 4. Meyer S. Evidence-based healthcare and the Cochrane Collaboration: an unfinished journey as yet. J Evid Based Med 2013; 6: 302–4. 5. Pearson A, Wiechula R, Court A, Lockwood C. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2005; 3: 207–15. 6. Munn Z, Jordan Z. Interventions to reduce anxiety, distress and the need for sedation in adult patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2013; 11: 265–74. 7. Si S, Moss JR, Sullivan TR, et al. Effectiveness of general practice-based health checks: a systematic
2
8.
9.
10.
11.
review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract 2014; 64: e47–53. Chang J, Guan Z, Chi I, et al. Evidence-based practice in the health and social services in China: developments, strategies, and challenges. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2014; 12: 17–24. Cabilan CJ, Hines SJ, Chang A. Managing peripheral intravenous devices in the adults’ general surgical setting: a best practice implementation report. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2014; 12: 25–30. De Buck E, Pauwels NS, Dieltjens T, Vandekerckhove P. Use of evidence-based practice in an aid organisation: a proposal to deal with the variety in terminology and methodology. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2014; 12: 39–49. Piso B, Reinsperger I, Winkler R. Recommendations from international clinical guidelines for routine antenatal infection screening: does evidence matter? Int J Evid Based Healthc 2014; 12: 50–61.
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare ß 2014 University of Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute
©2014 University of Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
The International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare – Quo Vadis? In an Editorial I wrote for the International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare in 2006,1 I reflected on the fundamental need to incorporate evidence into healthcare decisions made by medical practitioners, nurses and other healthcare professionals. Such information is often derived from high-quality, randomised, controlled clinical trials, which then needs to be systematically analysed and a determination made as to how useful the findings are before they are applied to the management of an individual patient. Although these processes create a platform for better clinical decision making, several authors have recently outlined a number of challenges, which undermine the potential for ‘evidence’ to improve health outcomes.2–4 Underpinning all of these issues is the cost of healthcare and how best evidence can be most effectively applied to clinical practice and health policy.2 The articles in this Journal have been traditionally grouped on the basis of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) model of Evidence-Based Healthcare, which comprises four major components: Healthcare Evidence Generation, Evidence Synthesis, Evidence Transfer and Evidence Utilisation.5 For example, in the previous issue of this Journal (under the category of Evidence Synthesis), Munn and Jordan6 reviewed ‘interventions to reduce anxiety, distress and the need for sedation in adult patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging’ and commented on the positive strategies which can assist in reducing these events. They also commented on the limitations of their review. Similarly, Si et al.,7 in a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of general practice-based health checks (also Evidence Synthesis), concluded that such health checks are associated with small, but statistically significant, outcomes. However, as their findings were based on a limited number of trials, they recommended that more evidence was required ‘before it is possible to determine the degree of effectiveness of health checks in general practice’.7 The authors also concluded that health checks carried out at work or in healthcare settings had no preventive health benefits. Evidence (knowledge) Transfer, on the contrary, is the act of transferring the synthesized knowledge to healthcare professionals and health systems using journals, other
publications, electronic media, and the like, whereas Evidence Utilisation relates to the implementation of evidence in practice.5 Many of the manuscripts that have been published in the International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare over the past 10 years have emphasized the need for evidence not simply being generated but also being effectively transferred and implemented into the practice setting. The frequent finding of systematic reviews, which state that ‘further research is required’, demonstrates the necessity to present the ‘best available’ evidence to inform the delivery of the best possible care. It is thus important that as a healthcare profession we continue to devise the most efficient ways to generate evidence and get the findings into practice. In the current issue of this Journal, Chang et al.8 examine ‘Evidence-based practice in the health and social services in China: developments, strategies, and challenges’ and conclude that EBP in the healthcare area has been developing faster than in the other fields they examined. In contrast, Cabilan et al.9 in the context of Evidence Utilisation report on the management of peripheral intravenous devices, whereas De Buck et al.10 provide a Commentary on ‘Use of evidence-based practice in an aid organisation: a proposal to deal with the variety in terminology and methodology’. Finally, Piso et al.11 examine the recommendations from clinical guidelines for routine antenatal infection screening and ask whether evidence matters? Another significant occurrence as of 2014 is the change in our publisher from ‘Wiley Blackwell’ to ‘Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins’ and the production of the journal exclusively in an electronic format. I look forward to this new relationship and the continued success of the International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare. Emeritus Professor Derek B. Frewin AO Editor-in Chief Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide Correspondence: Derek B. Frewin, The Cardiac Clinic, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare ß 2014 University of Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute
1
©2014 University of Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
EDITORIAL
References 1. Frewin D. Evidence-based healthcare: the role of our journal. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2006; 4: 263. 2. Heneghan C, Godlee F. Where next for evidence based healthcare? BMJ 2013; 346: 766–7. 3. Spence D. Evidence based medicine is broken. BMJ 2014; 348: 22–3. 4. Meyer S. Evidence-based healthcare and the Cochrane Collaboration: an unfinished journey as yet. J Evid Based Med 2013; 6: 302–4. 5. Pearson A, Wiechula R, Court A, Lockwood C. The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2005; 3: 207–15. 6. Munn Z, Jordan Z. Interventions to reduce anxiety, distress and the need for sedation in adult patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2013; 11: 265–74. 7. Si S, Moss JR, Sullivan TR, et al. Effectiveness of general practice-based health checks: a systematic
2
8.
9.
10.
11.
review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract 2014; 64: e47–53. Chang J, Guan Z, Chi I, et al. Evidence-based practice in the health and social services in China: developments, strategies, and challenges. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2014; 12: 17–24. Cabilan CJ, Hines SJ, Chang A. Managing peripheral intravenous devices in the adults’ general surgical setting: a best practice implementation report. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2014; 12: 25–30. De Buck E, Pauwels NS, Dieltjens T, Vandekerckhove P. Use of evidence-based practice in an aid organisation: a proposal to deal with the variety in terminology and methodology. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2014; 12: 39–49. Piso B, Reinsperger I, Winkler R. Recommendations from international clinical guidelines for routine antenatal infection screening: does evidence matter? Int J Evid Based Healthc 2014; 12: 50–61.
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare ß 2014 University of Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute
©2014 University of Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
