Cargando…

Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review current evidence-based practice (EBP) models and frameworks. Specifically, how EBP models and frameworks used in healthcare settings align with the original model of (1) asking the question, (2) acquiring the best evidence, (3) ap...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dusin, Jarrod, Melanson, Andrea, Mische-Lawson, Lisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10230988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37217268
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071188
_version_ 1785051656067481600
author Dusin, Jarrod
Melanson, Andrea
Mische-Lawson, Lisa
author_facet Dusin, Jarrod
Melanson, Andrea
Mische-Lawson, Lisa
author_sort Dusin, Jarrod
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review current evidence-based practice (EBP) models and frameworks. Specifically, how EBP models and frameworks used in healthcare settings align with the original model of (1) asking the question, (2) acquiring the best evidence, (3) appraising the evidence, (4) applying the findings to clinical practice and (5) evaluating the outcomes of change, along with patient values and preferences and clinical skills. DESIGN: A Scoping review. INCLUDED SOURCES AND ARTICLES: Published articles were identified through searches within electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) from January 1990 to April 2022. The English language EBP models and frameworks included in the review all included the five main steps of EBP. Excluded were models and frameworks focused on one domain or strategy (eg, frameworks focused on applying findings). RESULTS: Of the 20 097 articles found by our search, 19 models and frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The results showed a diverse collection of models and frameworks. Many models and frameworks were well developed and widely used, with supporting validation and updates. Some models and frameworks provided many tools and contextual instruction, while others provided only general process instruction. The models and frameworks reviewed demonstrated that the user must possess EBP expertise and knowledge for the step of assessing evidence. The models and frameworks varied greatly in the level of instruction to assess the evidence. Only seven models and frameworks integrated patient values and preferences into their processes. CONCLUSION: Many EBP models and frameworks currently exist that provide diverse instructions on the best way to use EBP. However, the inclusion of patient values and preferences needs to be better integrated into EBP models and frameworks. Also, the issues of EBP expertise and knowledge to assess evidence must be considered when choosing a model or framework.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10230988
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102309882023-06-01 Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review Dusin, Jarrod Melanson, Andrea Mische-Lawson, Lisa BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review current evidence-based practice (EBP) models and frameworks. Specifically, how EBP models and frameworks used in healthcare settings align with the original model of (1) asking the question, (2) acquiring the best evidence, (3) appraising the evidence, (4) applying the findings to clinical practice and (5) evaluating the outcomes of change, along with patient values and preferences and clinical skills. DESIGN: A Scoping review. INCLUDED SOURCES AND ARTICLES: Published articles were identified through searches within electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) from January 1990 to April 2022. The English language EBP models and frameworks included in the review all included the five main steps of EBP. Excluded were models and frameworks focused on one domain or strategy (eg, frameworks focused on applying findings). RESULTS: Of the 20 097 articles found by our search, 19 models and frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The results showed a diverse collection of models and frameworks. Many models and frameworks were well developed and widely used, with supporting validation and updates. Some models and frameworks provided many tools and contextual instruction, while others provided only general process instruction. The models and frameworks reviewed demonstrated that the user must possess EBP expertise and knowledge for the step of assessing evidence. The models and frameworks varied greatly in the level of instruction to assess the evidence. Only seven models and frameworks integrated patient values and preferences into their processes. CONCLUSION: Many EBP models and frameworks currently exist that provide diverse instructions on the best way to use EBP. However, the inclusion of patient values and preferences needs to be better integrated into EBP models and frameworks. Also, the issues of EBP expertise and knowledge to assess evidence must be considered when choosing a model or framework. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10230988/ /pubmed/37217268 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071188 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Dusin, Jarrod
Melanson, Andrea
Mische-Lawson, Lisa
Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review
title Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review
title_full Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review
title_fullStr Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review
title_short Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review
title_sort evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10230988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37217268
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071188
work_keys_str_mv AT dusinjarrod evidencebasedpracticemodelsandframeworksinthehealthcaresettingascopingreview
AT melansonandrea evidencebasedpracticemodelsandframeworksinthehealthcaresettingascopingreview
AT mischelawsonlisa evidencebasedpracticemodelsandframeworksinthehealthcaresettingascopingreview