证据等级:基于内部有效性的医疗设计研究证据权重评估工具。

Saman Jamshidi, Debajyoti Pati
{"title":"证据等级:基于内部有效性的医疗设计研究证据权重评估工具。","authors":"Saman Jamshidi, Debajyoti Pati","doi":"10.1177/19375867231175916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This inquiry aims to develop an appraisal tool to offer greater granularity in weighing evidence in the field of healthcare design research.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>In evidence-based design (EBD), the goal is to implement interventions that result in a meaningful and optimal effect based on current best evidence. Although multiple appraisal tools (many adopted from medical disciplines) have been instrumental in evaluating studies in the field of healthcare design research to identify the best evidence, they do not necessarily consider the unique contexts of healthcare design research, and methodologies appropriate to the field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five basic types of studies are ranked based on the level of confidence that they offer regarding the estimate of an effect: (1) meta-analysis studies, (2) causal studies, (3) correlational studies, (4) descriptive studies, and (5) anecdotal evidence. Causal studies are further divided into four levels based on the interaction of two factors: (1) type of intervention and (2) groups' equivalency and extraneous variable control.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An eight-level hierarchy of evidence for healthcare design research is proposed that is expected to improve upon previous hierarchies in three major ways: (a) including research methods that are more relevant to healthcare design research, (b) enhancing evaluation accuracy and reliability by providing a clearer definition of studies based on their key components rather than using study labels alone, and (c) distinguishing different levels of evidence, particularly in causal studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proposed appraisal tool is developed specifically for EBD by reflecting on the unique context of healthcare design research and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":90306,"journal":{"name":"PsycCritiques","volume":"19 1","pages":"19-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hierarchy of Evidence: An Appraisal Tool for Weighting the Evidence in Healthcare Design Research Based on Internal Validity.\",\"authors\":\"Saman Jamshidi, Debajyoti Pati\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19375867231175916\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This inquiry aims to develop an appraisal tool to offer greater granularity in weighing evidence in the field of healthcare design research.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>In evidence-based design (EBD), the goal is to implement interventions that result in a meaningful and optimal effect based on current best evidence. Although multiple appraisal tools (many adopted from medical disciplines) have been instrumental in evaluating studies in the field of healthcare design research to identify the best evidence, they do not necessarily consider the unique contexts of healthcare design research, and methodologies appropriate to the field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five basic types of studies are ranked based on the level of confidence that they offer regarding the estimate of an effect: (1) meta-analysis studies, (2) causal studies, (3) correlational studies, (4) descriptive studies, and (5) anecdotal evidence. Causal studies are further divided into four levels based on the interaction of two factors: (1) type of intervention and (2) groups' equivalency and extraneous variable control.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An eight-level hierarchy of evidence for healthcare design research is proposed that is expected to improve upon previous hierarchies in three major ways: (a) including research methods that are more relevant to healthcare design research, (b) enhancing evaluation accuracy and reliability by providing a clearer definition of studies based on their key components rather than using study labels alone, and (c) distinguishing different levels of evidence, particularly in causal studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proposed appraisal tool is developed specifically for EBD by reflecting on the unique context of healthcare design research and practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":90306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PsycCritiques\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"19-38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PsycCritiques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867231175916\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PsycCritiques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867231175916","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在开发一种评估工具,为权衡医疗设计研究领域的证据提供更精细的方法:在循证设计(EBD)中,目标是根据当前的最佳证据,实施能产生有意义和最佳效果的干预措施。尽管多种评估工具(许多采用医学学科的评估工具)在评估医疗保健设计研究领域的研究以确定最佳证据方面发挥了重要作用,但这些工具并不一定考虑到医疗保健设计研究的独特背景以及适合该领域的方法:根据对效果估计的置信度对五种基本类型的研究进行排序:(1) 元分析研究,(2) 因果研究,(3) 相关研究,(4) 描述性研究,以及 (5) 传闻证据。根据两个因素的相互作用,因果关系研究又分为四个层次:(结果:提出了医疗保健设计研究的八级证据等级体系,该体系有望在三个主要方面改进以往的等级体系:(a)包括与医疗保健设计研究更相关的研究方法;(b)根据研究的关键组成部分提供更清晰的定义,而不是仅使用研究标签,从而提高评估的准确性和可靠性;(c)区分不同等级的证据,特别是因果研究中的证据:结论:通过对医疗保健设计研究与实践的独特背景进行反思,提出了专门针对 EBD 的评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hierarchy of Evidence: An Appraisal Tool for Weighting the Evidence in Healthcare Design Research Based on Internal Validity.

Purpose: This inquiry aims to develop an appraisal tool to offer greater granularity in weighing evidence in the field of healthcare design research.

Background: In evidence-based design (EBD), the goal is to implement interventions that result in a meaningful and optimal effect based on current best evidence. Although multiple appraisal tools (many adopted from medical disciplines) have been instrumental in evaluating studies in the field of healthcare design research to identify the best evidence, they do not necessarily consider the unique contexts of healthcare design research, and methodologies appropriate to the field.

Methods: Five basic types of studies are ranked based on the level of confidence that they offer regarding the estimate of an effect: (1) meta-analysis studies, (2) causal studies, (3) correlational studies, (4) descriptive studies, and (5) anecdotal evidence. Causal studies are further divided into four levels based on the interaction of two factors: (1) type of intervention and (2) groups' equivalency and extraneous variable control.

Results: An eight-level hierarchy of evidence for healthcare design research is proposed that is expected to improve upon previous hierarchies in three major ways: (a) including research methods that are more relevant to healthcare design research, (b) enhancing evaluation accuracy and reliability by providing a clearer definition of studies based on their key components rather than using study labels alone, and (c) distinguishing different levels of evidence, particularly in causal studies.

Conclusions: The proposed appraisal tool is developed specifically for EBD by reflecting on the unique context of healthcare design research and practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信