Search results

The fire sector within the United Kingdom has identified a need to further develop their systematic use of academic literature and develop mechanisms to include academic knowledge to inform evidence-based policy and practice. By increasing knowledge exchange between the fire sector and academia, the ability to horizon scan and identify future relevant phenomena of interest to the fire sector will be achieved. Consequently, the evidence base and horizon scanning will increase the specificity of techniques, approaches and practices needed to continually improve the safety of the activities completed within the firefighting occupation, and it will also provide priority areas for investment and increase firefighter safety.

This technical paper primarily features an initial scoping review of academic and grey literature and an operational incident data review. This was completed to provide an initial and updated review of disciplines and areas of academia that are actively engaged in research relevant to the fire and rescue service. Consequently, this method sought to identify and examine the various disciplines of academia involved in fire research. This paper then uses that outcome to suggest a model of multidisciplinarity to inform the fire sector.

As a result of the scoping review, each academic discipline was identified and an initial review developed a predetermined set of key search terms. This was established through identifying the most frequently used fire-related terms within each discipline. This allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the breadth of activity and depth of complexity of fire related research within each discipline and an indicative set of key search terms to be developed. Recommendations are formulated to suggest next steps to routinely incorporate the academic knowledge base in the learning process of the fire and rescue services in the United Kingdom.

This paper provides an initial scoping map of academic literature and disciplines relevant to activities completed in the UK fire sector, which can be used to further develop the evidence base to inform the fire and rescue service of the United Kingdom. It also outlines possible mechanisms and a model to systematically facilitate knowledge exchange between academia and the fire sector by which knowledge exchange could further support the development of evidence-based policy and practice. The broad range of benefits of collaboration between the fire and rescue service and academia are explored.

This paper provides clear evidence as to why fire related research should have an increased priority status to inform the national fire and rescue services learning process and evidence for national policy and guidance development within the UK fire and rescue service. Additionally, recommendations are made to support the consideration of academic evidence in the systematic sector wide learning process.

Previously, the UK fire and rescue service had limited coordinated strategic engagement with academic disciplines to further develop their learning processes in order to produce an evidence base, which is cognisant of academic research to inform practice and guidance. This paper begins the narrowing of that gap by categorising academic literature relevant to fire research into clear disciplines, mapping these to an updated breadth of current activities undertaken by the fire and rescue service across the United Kingdom. The process also details a pilot of the proposed model to support knowledge exchange by producing an academically evidence-based submission to the National Fire Chiefs Council organisational learning process.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which low‐performing schools and their district define, acquire, use, and diffuse research‐based evidence.

The mixed methods case study builds upon the prior research on research evidence and social networks, drawing on social network analyses, survey data and interview data to examine how educators in low‐performing schools and across the district use evidence (including which types and for what purposes), as well as the relationship between network structure and evidence use for school improvement.

Educators had narrow definitions of, and skepticism about, evidence, which limited its acquisition and use for school improvement. The authors found a lack of diffusion of evidence within schools and districtwide as a result of sparse connections among and between educators. Evidence was used in an instrumental, yet superficial, manner leading to weak interpretation of evidence and resulting in limited understanding of underlying problems and available solutions.

The paper suggests the importance of using social network analyses to examine the diffusion of evidence, as well as the need to better understand how evidence is defined and used.

It is necessary to pay greater attention to how educators acquire evidence, as well as the ways in which it is used to impact school‐based decisions in low‐performing schools and districts. Moreover, the work suggests the influence of the district office on school‐level reform.

The paper contributes to the research on low‐performing schools and accountability policy by examining the larger districtwide context and integrates social network, survey, and interview data.

The purpose of the paper is to discuss the factors that would increase or decrease the prospects to use research evidence in legislation in a developing country.

Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used to identify the gaps in ability to utilise research evidence among policymakers. A combination of expert analysis of five policy brief formats, 13 self-administered semi-structured interviews with policymakers, focus group discussion and literature analysis informed data collection.

The incentives and motivations for research-based legislation are classified into three categories: those that concern legislators and researchers, those that concern legislators only and those that concern researchers only.

The work discusses the need for policymakers to make decisions based on facts. The findings are a reflection of a long interaction the author had with policymakers and researchers in Uganda.

The purpose of this study is to examine levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi.

The study selected a typology of health policies in Malawi from 2002 to 2017. The study adopted the SPIRIT conceptual framework and assessed the levels of research evidence in health policy, systems and services research using the revised SAGE policy assessment tool. Documentary analysis was used to assess levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi.

In 29 (96.7 per cent) of the health policies, policy formulators including healthcare directors and managers used generic search engines such as Google or Google Scholar to look for heath research evidence. In 28 (93.3 per cent) of the health policies, they searched for grey literature and other government documents. In only 6 (20 per cent) of the heath policy documents, they used academic literature in a form of journal articles and randomised controlled trials. No systematic reviews or policy briefs were consulted. Overall, in 23 (76.7 per cent) of the health policy documents, health research evidence played a minimal role and had very little influence on the policy documents or decision-making.

The empirical evidence in the health policy documents are limited because of insufficient research citation, low retrievability of health research evidence in the policy documents and biased selectivity of what constitutes health research evidence.

The study indicates that unfiltered information (data from policy evaluations and registries) constitutes majority of the research evidence in health policies both in health policy, systems and services research. The study seeks to advocate for the use of filtered information (peer reviewed, clinical trials and data from systematic reviews) in formulating health policies.

There is dearth of literature on the levels of health research evidence in health policy-making both in health policy, systems and services research. This study seeks to bridge the gap with empirical evidence from a developing country perspective.

The aim of this study is to examine the divide between academicians and professionals in the applied field of real estate in the USA and the impact of this divide on the use of best evidence by professionals. Its purpose is to introduce the concept of evidence‐based management to the discipline of real estate, to propose a framework for gathering best evidence, and to develop a stream of translational research to bridge the academic‐professional divide.

The paper takes an interdisciplinary conceptual approach regarding the gap between academic theory and practice, and its resolution. The authors apply the idea of best evidence and its management from the field of medicine to construct guidelines appropriate for real estate scholars and practitioners.

The paper offers a framework as a starting point for handling the academic‐professional divide. The paper borrows the concept of translational research from medicine to discuss how basic theoretical knowledge may be communicated to real estate professionals to improve performance.

The main contribution is to suggest means for building relevant, practical knowledge in real estate. Application of the evidence‐based method can make the work of researchers more rewarding by solving pragmatic, real‐world concerns. Real estate professionals can allocate scarce resources more effectively by following the evidence‐based approach. The use of evidence separates fact from fiction and enables prioritization of concerns.

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 substantial amount of research argues that built environmental interventions can improve the outcomes of patients and other users of healthcare facilities, supporting the concept of evidence-based design (EBD). However, the sources of such evidence and its flow into healthcare design are less well understood. This paper aims to provide insights to both the sources and flow of EBD used in three healthcare projects, to reveal practicalities of use and the relationships between them in practice.

Three healthcare case study projects provided empirical data on the design of a number of different elements. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify the source and flow of evidence used in this design, which was subsequently quantised to reveal the dominant patterns therein.

Healthcare design teams use evidence from various sources, the knowledge and experience of the members of the design team being the most common due to both ease of access and thus flow. Practice-based research and peer-reviewed published research flow both directly and indirectly into the design process, whilst collaborations with researchers and research institutions nurture the credibility of the latter.

The findings can be used to enhance activities that aim to design, conduct and disseminate future EBD research to improve their flow to healthcare designers.

This research contributes to understandings of EBD by exploring the flow of research from various sources in conflation and within real-life environments.

The purpose of this paper, using an evidence‐based management theoretical lens, is to examine research impact to provide guidance to supply chain management academics in evidencing and exploiting the outputs, outcomes and impact of their research.

Evidence‐based management theory is examined and applied to types of academic research impact. The distinction between academic and non‐academic impact is developed into a supply chain framework of research outputs, transfer, outcomes, impact and national/international benefits. Impact of supply chain management research is explored through a case study in the English National Health Service. Future opportunities and challenges for supply chain management researchers arising from increasing demand for and supply of evidence are discussed.

Author academic impact and citations are found to be increasingly important building blocks of evidence‐based evaluations of individual academics, journals, research quality assessments of groups and universities, and global rankings of universities. Supply chain management researchers can compare their impact with other areas of academia. Non‐academic impact of research has been assessed by funders of research projects and has spread to research quality assessments of universities.

Bibliometrics provide evidence of author and journal impact that can be used in human resource decisions, research quality assessments and global rankings of universities; this availability enables a debate on appropriate use of academic impact evidence. Supply chain management academics evidencing non‐academic research impact on business, society and economy will enable governments and funders of research to evaluate value for money return on their investment.

This perspective of evidence‐based evaluation of research impact and its implications might encourage debate on academic and non‐academic impact and encourage supply chain researchers to consider evidencing impact in their research design and methodology.

This article is based on a paper presented at the 2005 IFLA World Library and Information Congress. It brings together the findings to date of the author's research project on research quality, to address issues related to research quality as a basis for the use of research evidence in evidence‐based practice.

The methods used include a literature review, a review of existing models for evaluating research evidence, and a pilot project based on a qualitative, naturalistic research design that employed content analysis and statistical techniques.

While a number of strategies have been developed for the evaluation of published research, all have their limitations. The same is true for the models that have been proposed for assisting practitioners to evaluate research evidence as a basis for evidence‐based practice. The literature review identified four different approaches to the assessment of quality in research reporting. The pilot study identified three different “value perceptions” held by experienced research evaluators that affected their research evaluations.

Although practitioners need to be able to evaluate research reports as a basis for evidence‐based practice, there is currently no one strategy that can be recommended as a fail‐safe tool to support this activity.

The article highlights the variety and limitations of existing strategies or models for evaluating research quality and suggests possible steps forward.

To provide research‐informed guidance to leaders of quality and safety improvement and evidence‐based materials for education programmes for leaders

Search of databases and hard copy literature since 1985 into managers' and leaders' role in quality and safety improvement. Classification into “eA”: Empirical research strong evidence, “eB”: Empirical research, weak evidence and, “eC”: Conceptual discussion, not based on systematic empirical research. Summary, and synthesis of the best available evidence for a guidance checklist for leaders.

Although most literature emphasises the importance of committed leadership for successful quality and safety improvement, research evidence supporting this is scarce and often scientifically limited. The research shows evidence of the limitations and scope of leader actions for improving health care provision, the need to engage clinicians in this work and ways to do so, as well as the leadership role played by others apart from senior leaders. The ability of managers and other leaders skilfully to tailor Q&SI to the situation may be important but descriptions of how leaders do this and evidence supporting this proposition are lacking.

More research is needed about whether or how the leader role is different according to the stage of quality and safety development of the organisation, the type of organisation, the type of context, the level and type of leader and the type of improvement and improvement method.

Implications for leaders' actions are provided in a “best evidence guidance” checklist. This provides more tangible and research‐informed guidance than the inspirational literature or studies from single organisations.

This paper provides the first overview and synthesis of a wide range of studies which can be used as a basis for future research and materials for educational programmes. It provides the first detailed guidance for leaders about specific actions which research suggests they need to take to improve quality and safety.