Search results

The relatively recent attention that evidence-based decision making has received in health care management has been at least in part due to the profound influence of evidence-based medicine. The result has been several comparisons in the literature between the use of evidence in health care management decisions and the use of evidence in medical decision making. Direct comparison, however, may be problematic, given the differences between medicine and management as they relate to (1) the nature of evidence that is brought to bear on decision making; (2) the maturity of empirical research in each field (in particular, studies that have substantiated whether or not and how evidence-based decision making is enacted); and (3) the context within which evidence-based decisions are made. By simultaneously reviewing evidence-based medicine and management, this chapter aims to inform future theorizing and empirical research on evidence-based decision making in health care settings.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate existing body of knowledge on evidence‐based management, develop a theory of evidence, and propose a model of evidence‐based decision making.

Following a literature review, the paper takes a conceptual approach toward developing a theory of evidence and a process model of decision making. Formal research propositions amplify both theory and model.

The paper suggests that decision making is at the heart of management practice. It underscores the importance of both research and experiential evidence for making professionally sound managerial decisions. It argues that the strength of evidence is a function of its rigor and relevance manifested by methodological fit, relevance to the context, transparency of its findings, replicability of the evidence, and the degree of consensus within the decision community. A multi‐stage mixed level model of evidence‐based decision making is proposed with suggestions for future research.

An explicit, formal, and systematic collaboration at the global level among the producers of evidence and its users akin to the Cochrane Collaboration will ensure sound evidence, contribute to decision quality, and enable professionalization of management practice.

The unique value contribution of this paper comes from a critical review of the evidence‐based management literature, the articulation of a formal theory of evidence, and the development of a model for decision making driven by the theory of evidence.

A topic currently receiving significant academic and practitioner attention is called evidence-based management. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that this approach is sometimes over-sold and may be a fad. Additionally, evidence-based management fails to fully recognize the importance of tacit knowledge, what Kahneman calls system 1. Evidence-based management does provide tools to better use what Kahneman calls system 2, rationality. Decision-makers need to take advantage of both rational and beyond rational processes.

This is an essay, it is not a report of a study. At this point in time, this paper needs thinking, reflection, pondering, more than a data-based study.

Advocates promote evidence-based management in part to help avoid fads, yet evidence-based management itself has many of the characteristics of a fad. Evidence-based management is based on an objective rational view of the world and suggests highly rational methods of decision-making. However, a rational fact-based might not give sufficient credit to instinct and feelings. Decision-makers should take into account facts, evidence, when making decisions, but not ignore intuition, hunches and feelings. This study is learning that decisions use a galaxy of approaches, with both cognitive and affective flexibility.

As with any opinion-based paper, this lacks empirical support. Proponents ask us to believe in evidence-based management. Neither we, the authors of this paper, nor the proponents of evidence-based management can empirically support the ideas offered. An additional limitation is that the paper is written in one language, English. Translation into another language might yield different meanings.

There are advantages for scholars and practitioners to look at the best available evidence. There can be disadvantages in overlooking non-quantifiable factors.

Those who use evidence-based management should also take into account feelings, ethics, aesthetics, creativity, for the betterment of society. To solve wicked problems one needs more than facts and rational analysis.

The overwhelming majority of those writing about evidence-based management are supporters. This study offers a different view. This paper brings new ideas and new thinking to both the extensive fad literature and the huge evidence-based management literature. Evidence-based management is discussed widely. Google Scholar lists more than two million papers in 2019, 2020 and 2021 on evidence-based management. Readers of this journal should critically evaluate this popular set of ideas.

Presents models suggesting how research evidence can best be operationalised within health care commissioning. Models were derived from data gathered from surveys of Scottish health board managers and GP fundholders regarding the use of information in commissioning from 1995 to 1997. Feedback on the models was obtained subsequently from practitioners in 1998. Two models, one for health board managers and the other for GPs, are presented. These include critical success factors in achieving evidence‐based commissioning and factors that are likely to predispose and precipitate evidence‐based practice. Given a culture demanding transparency, accountability and continuing improvement, the models provide tools for reflection, evaluation and planning. In addition, they identify a pragmatic role for managers in evidence‐based commissioning and provide a framework for audit.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and describe the decision-making practices of public library managers in the context of interpersonal influence and evidence-based information sources, and to investigate the relationship between models of evidence-based practice and interpersonal influence in the decision-making process of public library managers.

Data were collected through short audio blog posts participants made about their everyday decisions and coded considering the facets of three existing evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) models as well as the facets of interpersonal influence.

The findings show that public library CEOs decision-making behaviours reflect the use of a variety of practices from analytical to intuitive as is expected of managers in any sector; however, a stronger reliance on gathering objective information may be present than in other sectors. Seeking multiple sources of information and a tendency towards rationalism may indicate a more sophisticated approach to decision making, but be less indicative of the practices employed more broadly. A possible outcome of these tendencies may result in discordance with external partners and collaborators.

The findings from this study may inform the work of associations, library and information science (LIS) educators, and library managers in developing strategic directions and instructional strategies within their organisations. It is also the first study to jointly examine models of interpersonal influence and evidence-based decision-making practices in any field.

While the study of the decision-making practices of various groups is growing, little previous research has been conducted with public library managers, and none has been undertaken in Canada.

There has been significant investment in NHS research and development aimed at strengthening the knowledge base of decision‐making. But evidence‐based health care is no panacea. What is effective or ineffective is vigorously contested. Nor does evidence‐based decision‐making offer a tidy solution to matters of a more sensitive political nature. In particular, it is not a solution to the rationing dilemma.

Special educators make countless decisions regarding services for students with disabilities. The evidence-based practice movement in education encourages those decisions be informed by the best available evidence, professional judgment, and client values and context. In this chapter we argue that while evidence is the best basis for making decisions it is imperfect and uncertainty about the evidence-base for decisions will always exist. We outline three classes of evidence and the sources of uncertainty for each. Finally, we describe a framework for integrating these different sources of evidence as a means for increasing confidence in evidence-based decisions.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and assess barriers and opportunities for evidence-based management (EBMgt) and decision-making in healthcare systems of the small island developing states (SIDSs) of English-speaking Caribbean.

The study utilized grounded theory to collect and analyze data on experiences and perceptions of 20 senior managers/leaders from seven Ministries of health in the region. It used semi-structured, in-depth interviews comprising open-ended questions. Data analysis comprised open, focused and theoretical coding.

EBMgt and decision-making is not a prominent approach taken by top officials of health systems because of internal and external barriers to its use. Indeed the absence of a culture of decision-making based on evidence pervades the public services of Caribbean island states. Notwithstanding, there are opportunities for meaningful application of this management/leadership strategy.

To the author’s knowledge, this is the first assessment of the application of EBMgt to health systems of SIDSs of the Caribbean. This paper is concerned with the approach to decision-making in health systems across island states and lends support to the use of evidence in decision-making and policy development. It provides useful direction for policy makers, and senior managers/leaders of these systems.

Hospital manager decisions can have a significant impact on service effectiveness and hospital success, so using an evidence-based approach can improve hospital management. The purpose of this paper is to identify evidence-based management (EBMgt) components and challenges. Consequently, the authors provide an improving evidence-based decision-making framework.

A total of 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2016. The authors also established three focus group discussions with health service managers. Data analysis followed deductive qualitative analysis guidelines.

Four basic themes emerged from the interviews, including EBMgt evidence sources (including sub-themes: scientific and research evidence, facts and information, political-social development plans, managers’ professional expertise and ethical-moral evidence); predictors (sub-themes: stakeholder values and expectations, functional behavior, knowledge, key competencies and skill, evidence sources, evidence levels, uses and benefits and government programs); EBMgt barriers (sub-themes: managers’ personal characteristics, decision-making environment, training and research system and organizational issues); and evidence-based hospital management processes (sub-themes: asking, acquiring, appraising, aggregating, applying and assessing).

Findings suggest that most participants have positive EBMgt attitudes. A full evidence-based hospital manager is a person who uses all evidence sources in a six-step decision-making process. EBMgt frameworks are a good tool to manage healthcare organizations. The authors found factors affecting hospital EBMgt and identified six evidence sources that healthcare managers can use in evidence-based decision-making processes.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the necessity of practicing Evidence-based Management (EBMgt) as an approach to decision-making in hospital settings. The literature, however, provides limited insight into the process of EBMgt and its contextual nuances. Such insight is critical for better leveraging EBMgt in practice. Therefore, the authors' aim was to integrate the literature on the process of EBMgt in hospital settings, identify the gaps in knowledge and delineate areas for future research.

The authors conducted a systematic scoping review using an innovative methodology that involved two systematic searches. First using EBMgt terminology and second using terminology associated with the EBMgt concept, which the authors derived from the first search.

The authors identified 218 relevant articles, which using content analysis, they mapped onto the grounded model of the EBMgt process; a novel model of the EBMgt process developed by Sahakian and colleagues. The authors found that the English language literature provides limited insight into the role of managers' perceptions and motives in EBMgt, the practice of EBMgt in Global South countries, and the outcomes of EBMgt. Overall, this study’s findings indicated that aspects of the decision-maker, context and outcomes have been neglected in EBMgt.

The authors contributed to the EBMgt literature by identifying these gaps and proposing future research areas and to the systematic review literature by developing a novel scoping review method.