Elizabeth A Barley1, Joanna Murray, Rachel Churchill. 1. Section of Evidence-Based Mental Health, Health Services and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK. elizabeth.barley@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinicians report difficulties using research in their practices. The aim of the study was to describe needs and preferences for a mental health clinical question-answering service designed to assist this process. METHOD: Multi-disciplinary clinicians participated in a focus group; users of the service supplied feedback. RESULTS: Fifty-four clinicians received answers to 84 questions about mental health treatments. User ratings showed that the answers had multiple uses: informing health care (43), education (22), staff development (28) and research (12), and were considered useful, clear, relevant and helpful. Focus group participants appreciated critically appraised summaries of evidence and stressed the time-saving benefit of the service. Clinicians without a medical training were least confident in applying evidence. Attitudes to research were positive, but concern was expressed about its potential misuse for political purposes. This appeared to arise from an ambiguity around the term 'insufficient evidence', which participants felt is widely misinterpreted as 'evidence of no effect'. CONCLUSIONS: A highly valued, responsive service has been developed. A range of clinicians find critically appraised summaries of research useful. Education about the use of research may help clinicians to be more evidence based.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinicians report difficulties using research in their practices. The aim of the study was to describe needs and preferences for a mental health clinical question-answering service designed to assist this process. METHOD: Multi-disciplinary clinicians participated in a focus group; users of the service supplied feedback. RESULTS: Fifty-four clinicians received answers to 84 questions about mental health treatments. User ratings showed that the answers had multiple uses: informing health care (43), education (22), staff development (28) and research (12), and were considered useful, clear, relevant and helpful. Focus group participants appreciated critically appraised summaries of evidence and stressed the time-saving benefit of the service. Clinicians without a medical training were least confident in applying evidence. Attitudes to research were positive, but concern was expressed about its potential misuse for political purposes. This appeared to arise from an ambiguity around the term 'insufficient evidence', which participants felt is widely misinterpreted as 'evidence of no effect'. CONCLUSIONS: A highly valued, responsive service has been developed. A range of clinicians find critically appraised summaries of research useful. Education about the use of research may help clinicians to be more evidence based.