Puljak, Livia;
Bala, Malgorzata M;
Zajac, Joanna;
Mestrovic, Tomislav;
Buttigieg, Sandra;
Yanakoulia, Mary;
Briel, Matthias;
... Pieper, Dawid; + view all
(2024)
Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
, 168
, Article 111247. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111247.
![[thumbnail of Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence based research - a cross-sectional study.pdf]](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence based research - a cross-sectional study.pdf - Accepted Version Access restricted to UCL open access staff until 24 February 2025. Download (456kB) |
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions. RESULTS: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring. CONCLUSION: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study |
| Location: | United States |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111247 |
| Publisher version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111247 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions. |
| Keywords: | Evidence-based research, Systematic reviews, Evidence synthesis, Monitoring, Research waste, Research value, Research methodology |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education > UCL Institute of Education UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education > UCL Institute of Education > IOE - Social Research Institute |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10193120 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
