...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Internal medicine journal >Evidence-based clinical policy: case report of a reproducible process to encourage understanding and evaluation of evidence.
【24h】

Evidence-based clinical policy: case report of a reproducible process to encourage understanding and evaluation of evidence.

机译：基于证据的临床政策：可重复过程的病例报告，以鼓励理解和评估证据。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

We report within a case study a reproducible process to facilitate the explicit incorporation of evidence by a multidisciplinary group into clinical policy development. To support the decision-making of a multidisciplinary Intersectoral Advisory Group (IAG) convened by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Health Policy Unit, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials about environmental tobacco smoke and smoking cessation interventions in paediatric settings was first undertaken. As reported in detail here, IAG members were then formally engaged in a transparent and replicable process to understand and interpret the synthesized evidence and to proffer their independent reactions regarding policy, practice and research. Our intention was to ensure that all IAG members were democratically engaged and made aware of the available evidence. As clinical policy must engage stakeholder representatives from diverse backgrounds, a process to equalize understanding of the evidence and 'democratize' judgment about its implications is needed. Future research must then examine the benefits of such explicit steps when guidelines, in turn, are implemented. We hypothesize that changes to future practice will be more likely if processes undertaken to develop guidelines are transparent to clinicians and other target groups.
机译：我们在一个案例研究中报告了一个可重复的过程，以促进多学科小组将证据明确纳入临床政策制定中。为支持由皇家澳大利亚医师学院健康政策小组召集的跨学科跨部门咨询小组（IAG）的决策，首次对儿童环境烟尘和戒烟干预措施的随机对照试验进行了系统评价。正如此处详细报道的那样，IAG成员随后正式参与了透明和可复制的过程，以理解和解释综合证据，并就政策，实践和研究提出自己的独立反应。我们的目的是确保IAG的所有成员都能民主参与并了解现有证据。由于临床政策必须使来自不同背景的利益相关者代表参与进来，因此需要一个过程来使对证据的理解均等，并对其含义进行“民主化”判断。然后，当实施指南时，未来的研究必须检查这些明确步骤的好处。我们假设，如果制定指导方针的过程对临床医生和其他目标群体透明，则对将来的实践进行更改的可能性更大。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号