The determinants of evidence use by Australian clinical networks as agents and stewards of safety and quality: a conceptual framework.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Jade Hart, Lucio Naccarella, Helen Dickinson
{"title":"The determinants of evidence use by Australian clinical networks as agents and stewards of safety and quality: a conceptual framework.","authors":"Jade Hart, Lucio Naccarella, Helen Dickinson","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01364-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare systems are increasingly complex given devolution of powers, decentralization of decision-making, and escalating fragmentation of effort. This indicates a role for governments in how they can bring this together, oversee and improve across the system. Goals pertaining to the safety and quality of clinical care are advanced by governments using stewardship and agent-based strategies that increasingly place reliance on being evidence based. In Australia, clinical networks are a safety and quality stewardship model that convenes multidisciplinary and intersectoral actors to define evidence-based expectations for clinical practice, management and policy. Yet understandings of the role that evidence is intended to play within clinical networks remain under investigated. Despite vast literature examining the contribution of stewardship, networks and evidence use in healthcare, research on these topics have occurred in relative isolation. There lacks an integrative approach to these concepts to advance stewardship research and practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By employing a theory generating approach, this research outlines the determinants of evidence use by Australian clinical networks as safety and quality stewards. A conceptual framework is developed, informed by examination of the theoretical and empirical literature, findings from mixed methods research involving interviews, documentary analysis and Q-methodology, and validation of findings with research partners.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Clinical Network Safety and Quality Stewardship Conceptual Framework situates the determinants of evidence use by networks within understandings of safety and quality stewardship. It encompasses three layers: (i) the model of health system coordination and governance, (ii) network inputs and understandings of evidence, and (iii) points of influence. Within each layer, several attributes are identified that are explained with reference to agency and stewardship theory. We describe the interactions within and between the layers incorporated in the framework that are of importance in order to explain how evidence can shape the decisions that contribute to safety and quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Theoretical contributions offer greater conceptual clarity with regard to the role of evidence within the context of networked stewardship models and systems where foundations are in agent-based approaches of coordination and governance. The conceptual framework seeks to advance scholarly research and practice. Merits, limitations and considerations for further testing of the framework are outlined.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"119"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12482130/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01364-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Healthcare systems are increasingly complex given devolution of powers, decentralization of decision-making, and escalating fragmentation of effort. This indicates a role for governments in how they can bring this together, oversee and improve across the system. Goals pertaining to the safety and quality of clinical care are advanced by governments using stewardship and agent-based strategies that increasingly place reliance on being evidence based. In Australia, clinical networks are a safety and quality stewardship model that convenes multidisciplinary and intersectoral actors to define evidence-based expectations for clinical practice, management and policy. Yet understandings of the role that evidence is intended to play within clinical networks remain under investigated. Despite vast literature examining the contribution of stewardship, networks and evidence use in healthcare, research on these topics have occurred in relative isolation. There lacks an integrative approach to these concepts to advance stewardship research and practice.

Methods: By employing a theory generating approach, this research outlines the determinants of evidence use by Australian clinical networks as safety and quality stewards. A conceptual framework is developed, informed by examination of the theoretical and empirical literature, findings from mixed methods research involving interviews, documentary analysis and Q-methodology, and validation of findings with research partners.

Results: The Clinical Network Safety and Quality Stewardship Conceptual Framework situates the determinants of evidence use by networks within understandings of safety and quality stewardship. It encompasses three layers: (i) the model of health system coordination and governance, (ii) network inputs and understandings of evidence, and (iii) points of influence. Within each layer, several attributes are identified that are explained with reference to agency and stewardship theory. We describe the interactions within and between the layers incorporated in the framework that are of importance in order to explain how evidence can shape the decisions that contribute to safety and quality.

Conclusions: Theoretical contributions offer greater conceptual clarity with regard to the role of evidence within the context of networked stewardship models and systems where foundations are in agent-based approaches of coordination and governance. The conceptual framework seeks to advance scholarly research and practice. Merits, limitations and considerations for further testing of the framework are outlined.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

澳大利亚临床网络作为安全和质量的代理人和管理者使用证据的决定因素:一个概念框架。
背景:由于权力下放、决策权力下放和工作的碎片化,医疗保健系统变得越来越复杂。这表明政府在如何整合、监督和改进整个系统方面发挥了作用。与临床护理的安全和质量有关的目标是由政府通过管理和基于代理人的战略来推进的,这些战略越来越依赖于基于证据的战略。在澳大利亚,临床网络是一种安全和质量管理模式,它召集了多学科和跨部门的参与者,以确定临床实践、管理和政策的循证期望。然而,对证据在临床网络中所起作用的理解仍在调查之中。尽管大量文献研究了管理、网络和证据使用在医疗保健中的贡献,但对这些主题的研究相对孤立。对于这些概念,缺乏一种综合的方法来推进管理研究和实践。方法:通过采用理论生成方法,本研究概述了澳大利亚临床网络作为安全和质量管理人员使用证据的决定因素。通过对理论和实证文献的研究,包括访谈、文献分析和q -方法学在内的混合方法研究的结果,以及与研究伙伴对研究结果的验证,形成了一个概念框架。结果:临床网络安全和质量管理概念框架将网络证据使用的决定因素置于对安全和质量管理的理解之中。它包括三个层面:(i)卫生系统协调和治理模式,(ii)网络投入和对证据的理解,以及(iii)影响点。在每一层中,确定了几个属性,并参考代理和管理理论进行了解释。我们描述了框架中重要的各层之间和内部的相互作用,以解释证据如何影响有助于安全和质量的决策。结论:理论贡献为证据在网络管理模式和系统背景下的作用提供了更清晰的概念,其中基金会采用基于代理的协调和治理方法。概念框架旨在推进学术研究和实践。概述了该框架的优点、局限性和进一步测试的注意事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信