Disseminating and implementing the results of back pain research in primary care
Maurits W van Tulder1, Peter R Croft, Peter van Splunteren
1Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Free University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. mw.van_tulder.emgo@med.vu.nl
Study Design:
Description of a workshop entitled "Implementation and Dissemination: Getting Research into Practice," that was held at the Fourth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care, in Israel in March 2000.
Summary Of Background Data:
A gap exists between research endeavors and the dissemination and implementation of new research findings.
Objectives:
To describe the outcomes of a workshop on implementation and dissemination of research findings.
Methods:
The Fourth International Forum on Low Back Pain Research in Primary Care aimed to encourage open discussion and consensus building among leading experts in the field, and to develop a research agenda. The workshop on implementation and dissemination focused on issues surrounding the gap between research results and actual practice. These issues were introduced by several presentations. The broad conclusions of the subsequent debate are summarized in this paper as a series of responses to key questions: 1) who should do the implementation?, 2) what should researchers do to help implementation?, 3) what are the key outcomes?, and 4) what are important ingredients for successful implementation?
Results:
There was consensus about the importance of implementation of research findings, about the ineffectiveness of merely publishing or disseminating research findings, and about the need for prospective randomized trials evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different implementation strategies. The majority view is that the health provider professions and the professional bodies are the central organizations to implement guidelines, rather than the researchers themselves. Success in getting guidelines or research results into practice is dependent on involving local health service groups, experts, and opinion leaders (both local and national). Patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness of guideline implementation were considered important. It was acknowledged that there are many potentially effective ingredients for successful implementation, but a clear indication of the contents of an effective implementation strategy is still lacking.
Conclusions:
The plenary and workshops focused on closing the gap between research results and actual practice. As long as we do not fully understand how best to influence and change physician behavior, the choice of implementation strategies should be based on the present knowledge of potentially effective interventions and should include considerations of available resources for, and potential barriers to, implementation.
