Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study.

Paul M Wilson,Liz Bickerdike,Rhiannon Turner,Kate Farley,Duncan Chambers,Mark Lambert,Carl Thompson,Ian S Watt

doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0199-4

Abstract

BackgroundClinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are mandated to use research evidence effectively to ensure optimum use of resources by the National Health Service (NHS), both in accelerating innovation and in stopping the use of less effective practices and models of service delivery. We intend to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence service improves uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives.Methods/designThis is a controlled before and after study involving CCGs in the North of England. Participating CCGs will receive one of three interventions to support the use of research evidence in their decision-making: 1) consulting plus responsive push of tailored evidence; 2) consulting plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or 3) standard service unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Our primary outcome will be changed at 12 months from baseline of a CCGs ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Secondary outcomes will measure individual clinical leads and managers’ intentions to use research evidence in decision making. Documentary evidence of the use of the outputs of the service will be sought. A process evaluation will evaluate the nature and success of the interactions both within the sites and between commissioners and researchers delivering the service.DiscussionThe proposed research will generate new knowledge of direct relevance and value to the NHS. The findings will help to clarify which elements of the service are of value in promoting the use of research evidence. Those involved in NHS commissioning will be able to use the results to inform how best to build the infrastructure they need to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making and to fulfil their statutory duties under the Health and Social Care Act.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0199-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are mandated to use research evidence effectively to ensure optimum use of resources by the National Health Service (NHS), both in accelerating innovation and in stopping the use of less effective practices and models of service delivery
Those involved in NHS commissioning will be able to use the results to inform how best to build the infrastructure they need to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making and to fulfil their statutory duties under the Health and Social Care Act
The Act has mandated the national and local entities, NHS England and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to promote ‘the use of evidence obtained from research’

Summary

Introduction

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are mandated to use research evidence effectively to ensure optimum use of resources by the National Health Service (NHS), both in accelerating innovation and in stopping the use of less effective practices and models of service delivery. We intend to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence service improves uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. The National Health Service (NHS) in England is facing severe funding constraints both and in the medium term. The Act has mandated the national and local entities, NHS England and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to promote ‘the use of evidence obtained from research’. Public health specialists have supported and facilitated the use of research evidence in a Wilson et al Implementation Science (2015) 10:7 commissioning context [4,5]. The responsibility for developing the absorptive capacity [6,7] of CCGs to recognise and understand valuable research based knowledge is less clear

Objectives

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion