Mai N Dwairy1, Nicholas Kendall. 1. Accident Compensation Corporation, Corporate Office Wellington, New Zealand. dwairym@acc.co.nz
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective is to study how the staff who purchase health care services for a large national government accident-compensation system seek information on treatment effectiveness, how they assess the quality of that information, whether they question the information sources they choose, and how familiar they are with the key concepts of evidence-based health care (EBHC). METHOD: Staff (22 out of 34) of the health purchasing division of the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation (NZ ACC) were interviewed using eight preformatted questions to which they could provide open and multiple answers. Responses were subsequently codified into typologies for quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Most respondents report that they assess the effectiveness of a treatment by accessing published information (nonhuman sources), by consulting others (human sources), or by both means. They assess the quality of information mostly by consulting others, and the second-highest proportion of responses state that they do not know how to evaluate the quality of information. No clear preference emerges with respect to the types of information needed to determine the effectiveness of treatments. The majority of the staff believes they can access information needed to determine treatment effectiveness through the Internet or information databases such as MEDLINE. Although most said they understand the key concepts of EBHC, only five out of twenty-two were able to accurately describe them. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that there is a low level of awareness among the staff of the NZ ACC regarding the use of evidence and understanding of the key concepts of EBHC. Many surveyed staff members lack the skills or training to directly question information about effectiveness of a treatment. They have little idea of the information required to determine the effectiveness of a treatment, and the majority appears to lack the skills to evaluate the health care literature.
OBJECTIVES: The objective is to study how the staff who purchase health care services for a large national government accident-compensation system seek information on treatment effectiveness, how they assess the quality of that information, whether they question the information sources they choose, and how familiar they are with the key concepts of evidence-based health care (EBHC). METHOD: Staff (22 out of 34) of the health purchasing division of the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation (NZ ACC) were interviewed using eight preformatted questions to which they could provide open and multiple answers. Responses were subsequently codified into typologies for quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Most respondents report that they assess the effectiveness of a treatment by accessing published information (nonhuman sources), by consulting others (human sources), or by both means. They assess the quality of information mostly by consulting others, and the second-highest proportion of responses state that they do not know how to evaluate the quality of information. No clear preference emerges with respect to the types of information needed to determine the effectiveness of treatments. The majority of the staff believes they can access information needed to determine treatment effectiveness through the Internet or information databases such as MEDLINE. Although most said they understand the key concepts of EBHC, only five out of twenty-two were able to accurately describe them. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that there is a low level of awareness among the staff of the NZ ACC regarding the use of evidence and understanding of the key concepts of EBHC. Many surveyed staff members lack the skills or training to directly question information about effectiveness of a treatment. They have little idea of the information required to determine the effectiveness of a treatment, and the majority appears to lack the skills to evaluate the health care literature.
Authors: W O Spitzer; M L Skovron; L R Salmi; J D Cassidy; J Duranceau; S Suissa; E Zeiss Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1995-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468