Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Review Meta Analysis
Evidence-Based Decision Making in Psychological Research: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Network meta-analysis (NMA) was introduced in the 1990s as an extension of standard meta-analysis. Since then, it has been utilized in various scientific fields, particularly in medicine, to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies/interventions/treatments applied for specific outcomes. In recent years, NMA, which offers a highly attractive methodology for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers, has gained popularity as a form of evidence synthesis. Recognized as providing the 'highest level of evidence', NMA is also crucial in conducting research in psychology and psychiatry. With advancements in psychology and psychiatry, specific programmes or interventions have been developed and continue to be developed to address particular problem areas. Due to the variety of these treatment methods, there has not yet been a study focusing on the direct comparison of some treatments. Therefore, the aim of this article is to introduce the NMA method and highlight its potential in evidence-based decision-making, particularly in the field of psychopathology. By doing so, it is anticipated that the perspective of clinicians can be broadened in planning appropriate therapies for psychopathologies. ⋯ In conclusion, NMA holds significant potential for use in psychology, where many treatment options exist, and its use is encouraged among clinicians and researchers in the field.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Clinical decision support systems in addiction and concurrent disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
This review aims to synthesise the literature on the efficacy, evolution, and challenges of implementing Clincian Decision Support Systems (CDSS) in the realm of mental health, addiction, and concurrent disorders. ⋯ CDSS shows promise in mental health and addiction treatment but requires a nuanced approach for effective and ethical implementation. The results emphasise the need for continued research to ensure optimised and equitable use in healthcare settings.
-
The primary aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) educational interventions on healthcare professionals' knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviour of EBHC, clinical process and care outcomes. A secondary aim of the review is to assess the effects of important pedagogical moderating factors for EBHC educational interventions. ⋯ These findings suggest that EBHC educational interventions may have a large short-term effect on improving healthcare professionals' knowledge, skills, attitude and behaviour of EBHC. These effects may be longer-lasting regarding EBHC behaviour. In terms of pedagogy, blended learning, active learning, and consistency of the individual delivering the intervention may be important positive moderating factors.
-
Little guidance exists on the conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCT) that seek to randomise patients away from standard of care. We sought to test the technique of network meta-analysis (NMA) to ascertain best available evidence for the purposes of informing the ethical evaluation of RCTs under these circumstances. We used the example of RCTs for patients with symptomatic, moderate to severe carotid stenosis that seek to compare surgical intervention plus medical therapy (standard of care) versus medical therapy (less than standard of care). ⋯ Our results support the feasibility of using NMA to assess best available evidence to inform the ethical evaluation of RCTs seeking to randomise patients away from standard of care. Our results suggest that a strong argument is required to ethically justify the conduct of RCTs that seek to randomise patients away from standard of care in the setting of symptomatic moderate to severe carotid stenosis.
-
Little guidance exists on the conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCT) that seek to randomise patients away from standard of care. We sought to test the technique of network meta-analysis (NMA) to ascertain best available evidence for the purposes of informing the ethical evaluation of RCTs under these circumstances. We used the example of RCTs for patients with symptomatic, moderate to severe carotid stenosis that seek to compare surgical intervention plus medical therapy (standard of care) versus medical therapy (less than standard of care). ⋯ Our results support the feasibility of using NMA to assess best available evidence to inform the ethical evaluation of RCTs seeking to randomise patients away from standard of care. Our results suggest that a strong argument is required to ethically justify the conduct of RCTs that seek to randomise patients away from standard of care in the setting of symptomatic moderate to severe carotid stenosis.