Cargando…

Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition of gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to assess the volume and scope of peer-reviewed cancer research output in the years 2000, 2005, and 2010. METHODS: Eligible papers were published in English and re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bryant, Jamie, Boyes, Allison, Jones, Kimberley, Sanson-Fisher, Rob, Carey, Mariko, Fry, Rae
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4114221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24666544
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-37
_version_ 1782328406389555200
author Bryant, Jamie
Boyes, Allison
Jones, Kimberley
Sanson-Fisher, Rob
Carey, Mariko
Fry, Rae
author_facet Bryant, Jamie
Boyes, Allison
Jones, Kimberley
Sanson-Fisher, Rob
Carey, Mariko
Fry, Rae
author_sort Bryant, Jamie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition of gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to assess the volume and scope of peer-reviewed cancer research output in the years 2000, 2005, and 2010. METHODS: Eligible papers were published in English and reported on evidence-practice gaps in cancer care. The electronic database Medline was searched for three time periods using MeSH headings and keywords. Abstracts were assessed against eligibility criteria by one reviewer and checked by a second. Papers meeting eligibility criteria were coded as data-based or non-data-based, and by cancer type of focus. All data-based papers were then further classified as descriptive studies documenting the extent of, or barriers to addressing, the evidence-practice gap; or intervention studies examining the effectiveness of strategies to reduce the evidence-practice gap. RESULTS: A total of 176 eligible papers were identified. The number of publications significantly increased over time, from 25 in 2000 to 100 in 2010 (p < 0.001). Of the 176 identified papers, 160 were data-based. The majority of these (n = 150) reported descriptive studies. Only 10 studies examined the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce discrepancies between evidence and clinical practice. Of these, only one was a randomized controlled trial. Of all data-based studies, almost one-third (n = 48) examined breast cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: While the number of publications investigating evidence-practice gaps in cancer care increased over a ten-year period, most studies continued to describe gaps between best evidence and clinical practice, rather than rigorously testing interventions to reduce the gap.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4114221
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41142212014-07-30 Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review Bryant, Jamie Boyes, Allison Jones, Kimberley Sanson-Fisher, Rob Carey, Mariko Fry, Rae Implement Sci Systematic Review BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition of gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to assess the volume and scope of peer-reviewed cancer research output in the years 2000, 2005, and 2010. METHODS: Eligible papers were published in English and reported on evidence-practice gaps in cancer care. The electronic database Medline was searched for three time periods using MeSH headings and keywords. Abstracts were assessed against eligibility criteria by one reviewer and checked by a second. Papers meeting eligibility criteria were coded as data-based or non-data-based, and by cancer type of focus. All data-based papers were then further classified as descriptive studies documenting the extent of, or barriers to addressing, the evidence-practice gap; or intervention studies examining the effectiveness of strategies to reduce the evidence-practice gap. RESULTS: A total of 176 eligible papers were identified. The number of publications significantly increased over time, from 25 in 2000 to 100 in 2010 (p < 0.001). Of the 176 identified papers, 160 were data-based. The majority of these (n = 150) reported descriptive studies. Only 10 studies examined the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce discrepancies between evidence and clinical practice. Of these, only one was a randomized controlled trial. Of all data-based studies, almost one-third (n = 48) examined breast cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: While the number of publications investigating evidence-practice gaps in cancer care increased over a ten-year period, most studies continued to describe gaps between best evidence and clinical practice, rather than rigorously testing interventions to reduce the gap. BioMed Central 2014-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4114221/ /pubmed/24666544 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-37 Text en Copyright © 2014 Bryant et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Bryant, Jamie
Boyes, Allison
Jones, Kimberley
Sanson-Fisher, Rob
Carey, Mariko
Fry, Rae
Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review
title Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review
title_full Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review
title_fullStr Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review
title_short Examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review
title_sort examining and addressing evidence-practice gaps in cancer care: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4114221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24666544
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-37
work_keys_str_mv AT bryantjamie examiningandaddressingevidencepracticegapsincancercareasystematicreview
AT boyesallison examiningandaddressingevidencepracticegapsincancercareasystematicreview
AT joneskimberley examiningandaddressingevidencepracticegapsincancercareasystematicreview
AT sansonfisherrob examiningandaddressingevidencepracticegapsincancercareasystematicreview
AT careymariko examiningandaddressingevidencepracticegapsincancercareasystematicreview
AT fryrae examiningandaddressingevidencepracticegapsincancercareasystematicreview