Rigorous evaluations of evolving interventions: can we have our cake and eat it too?
نویسندگان
چکیده
The years immediately following the widespread interest in patient safety and then healthcare quality saw considerable debate between pragmatically oriented improvers and research-oriented evaluators —or between ‘evangelists’ and ‘snails’ as one longtime observer characterised the two groups. Too often, enthusiastic improvers (‘evangelists’) relied on simple pre-post designs within a single context leading to erroneous claims of efficacy. In contrast, research-oriented investigators (‘snails’) and journals pushed for ever more rigorous designs including randomised trials, potentially at the cost of discouraging many improvers without this training and leading to slower development and deployment of effective interventions. 10 Many clinicians, quality improvement (QI) experts and researchers are thus caught in a quandary: how best to evaluate a candidate QI intervention? How can we best balance the pragmatic needs of improvement— including the frequent need to refine the intervention or its implementation—with the requirement of most traditional evaluative designs, which typically require a static intervention? We believe this question is one of the most important issues to consider when developing a QI intervention and is often not considered carefully enough—either by snails or evangelists. Decisions about when and how to evaluate potentially promising interventions can have crucial implications for the future of the intervention and the patients it could affect.
منابع مشابه
It Is Not That Simple nor Compelling!; Comment on “Translating Evidence Into Healthcare Policy and Practice: Single Versus Multi-faceted Implementation Strategies – Is There a Simple Answer to a Complex Question?”
Healthcare decisions are often made under pressure, with varying levels of information in a changing clinical context. With limited resources and a focus on improving patient outcomes, healthcare managers and health professionals strive to implement both clinical and cost-effective care. However, the gap between research evidence and health policy/clinical practice persists despite our best eff...
متن کاملThrow One's Cake - and Eat It Too
We consider the problem of fairly dividing a heterogeneous cake between a number of players with different tastes. In this setting, it is known that fairness requirements may result in a suboptimal division from the social welfare standpoint. Here, we show that in some cases, discarding some of the cake and fairly dividing only the remainder may be socially preferable to any fair division of th...
متن کاملA language for hierarchical data parallel design-space exploration on GPUs
Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) offer potential for very high performance; they are also rapidly evolving. Obsidian is an embedded language (in Haskell) for implementing high performance kernels to be run on GPUs. We would like to have our cake and eat it too; we want to raise the level of abstraction beyond CUDA code and still give the programmer control over the details relevant to kernel pe...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- BMJ quality & safety
دوره 27 4 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2018