Evidence-Based Practice

Presentatie over: "Evidence-Based Practice"— Transcript van de presentatie:

1 Evidence-Based Practice
Lunchbijeenkomst 14 maart 2013

2

3 Post Grad (E)MBA Business Schools HBO Universiteit

4 Aanleiding Wat moet een student in de praktijk straks kunnen:
- zelf onderzoek doen? - onderzoek kunnen beoordelen + toepassen? Wat betekent dat voor het curriculum? Wat betekent dat voor de accreditatie?

5 HBO standaard (2009) “In onze moderne samenleving is het cruciaal dat hbo-bachelors over een onderzoekend vermogen beschikken dat leidt tot reflectie, tot evidence-based practice, en tot innovatie.”

6 Evidence-Based Practice ?

7 Wat is het? Waar komt het vandaan? Hoe ziet het er uit in een opleiding? Hoe zit dat bij 4e jaars studenten?

8 Evidence based practice:
Wat is het?

9 Evidence-based practice
Uitgangspunt bij evidence-based practice is dat beslissingen gebaseerd dienen te zijn op een combinatie van wetenschappelijk denken en de best beschikbare 'evidence'.

10 Evidence based practice
Met het begrip 'evidence' wordt niet meer bedoeld dan 'informatie'. Dit kan informatie zijn afkomstig uit wetenschappelijk onderzoek, maar ook interne bedrijfsinformatie en zelfs persoonlijke ervaring geldt als 'evidence’.

11 Evidence based practice
In principe neemt iedere manager dus beslissingen op basis van 'evidence'. De meeste managers besteden echter nauwelijks aandacht aan de kwaliteit van de 'evidence' waarop ze hun beslissingen baseren.

12 Evidence-based practice:
kritisch en wetenschappelijk denken van verschillende informatiebronnen gebruik maken de beschikbare evidence kritisch tegen het licht houden denken in termen van waarschijnlijkheid in plaats van 'golden bullets'.

13 Evidence based practice
Professional expertise and judgement Best available organizational evidence Stakeholders’ values and concerns Best available scientific evidence Evidence-based decision

14 Evidence based practice:
Waar komt het vandaan?

15 What field is this? “there is a large research-user gap”
“practitioners do not read academic journals” “the findings of research into what is an effective intervention are not being translated into actual practice” “academics not practitioners are driving the research agenda” “the relevance, quality and applicability of research is questionable” “practice is being driven more by fads and fashions than research” “many practices are doing more harm than good”

16 Medicine: Founding fathers
David Sackett Gordon Guyatt McMaster University Medical School, Canada

17 How it all started

18 if you’re hyperventilating
Problem I: persistent convictions breathe into a bag if you’re hyperventilating

19 give them a drug that reduces the number of irregular beats
Problem I: persistent convictions elderly people who have an irregular heartbeat are much more likely to die of coronary disease give them a drug that reduces the number of irregular beats

20 How 40,000 cardiologists can be wrong
In the early 1980s newly introduced anti-arrhythmic drugs were found to be highly successful at suppressing arrhythmias. Not until a RCT was performed was it realized that, although these drugs suppressed arrhythmias, they actually increased mortality. By the time the results of this trial were published, at least 100,000 such patients had been taking these drugs.

21 David Sackett Half of what you learn in medical school will be shown to be either dead wrong or out-of-date within 5 years of your graduation; the trouble is that nobody can tell you which half. The most important thing to learn is how to learn on your own: search for the evidence! (Remember that your teachers are as full of bullshit as your parents)

22 Problem II: too much information
More than 1 million articles in 40,000 medical journals per year (= 1995; now probably more than 2 million). For a specialist to keep up this means reading 25 articles every day (for a GP more than 100!)

23 Problem II: too much information
HRM: 1,350 articles in 2010 (ABI/INFORM). For an HR manager to keep up this means reading 3 to 4 articles every day (for a ‘general’ manager more than 50!) BTW: most of the research is seriously flawed or irrelevant for practice

24 The 5 steps EBP Formulate a focused question (Ask)
Search for the best available evidence (Acquire) Critically appraise the evidence (Appraise) Integrate the evidence with your professional expertise and apply (Apply) Monitor the outcome (Assess) Zelf onderzoek doen?

25 Evidence-Based Practice
1991 Medicine 1998 Education 1999 Social care, public policy 2000 Nursing 2000 Criminal justice ???? Management?

26 Evidence based practice: Hoe ziet het er uit in de opleiding?

27 Evidence-based practice
Fase 1: Het ontwikkelen van kritisch en wetenschappelijk denken dat leidt tot een professioneel-kritische attitude met betrekking tot organisatievraagstukken Fase 2: Het kunnen formuleren van een expliciete vraag en op basis van deze vraag kunnen zoeken in online databases naar uitkomst van relevant wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Fase 3: Het kritisch kunnen beoordelen van wetenschappelijke en organizational evidence (critical appraisal) Fase 4: Uitkomst van wetenschappelijk onderzoek kunnen toepassen in de eigen beroepspraktijk (application of science)

28 Evidence based practice
Professional expertise and judgment Best available organizational evidence Stakeholders’ values and concerns Best available scientific evidence Evidence-based decision

29 Waarom (wetenschappelijk) onderzoek?

30 Trust me, 20 years of experience

31 Bounded rationality

32 Richard Feynman “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool”.

33 Bounded rationality

34 Het feilbare brein System 1 System 2 Snel, actie
Intuitief, associatief shortcuts & biasses System 2 Langzaam (lui!) Rationeel Nadenken

35 Systeem 1

36 Systeem 1: het feilbare brein
Seeing order in randomness Mental corner cutting Misinterpretation of incomplete data Halo effect False consensus effect Group think Self serving bias Sunk cost fallacy Cognitive dissonance reduction Confirmation bias Authority bias Small numbers fallacy In-group bias Recall bias Anchoring bias Inaccurate covariation detection Distortions due to plausibility

37 Waarom onderzoek? BIAS Het feilbare brein Wetenschappelijk onderzoek
Meningen Assumpties (aannames) Overtuigingen Persoonlijke ervaringen BIAS Wetenschappelijk onderzoek Feiten Evidence: bewijs / aanwijzingen

38 Fase 1: Kritisch & wetenschappelijk denken
Denkfouten Informatiebronnen Mythbusting Assumpties

39 7 Denkfouten (die u beter aan anderen kunt overlaten)
Seeing order in randomness Confirmation bias Small numbers fallacy Outcome bias Halo effect Authority bias Group think

40 Dr. Michael Shermer (Director of the Skeptics Society)
Seeing order in randomness Een Type I fout of een vals positief: denken dat er een patroon / verband is terwijl dat er in het echt niet is. Een Type II fout of een vals negatief: denken dat er geen patroon / verband is terwijl dat er in het echt wel is Dr. Michael Shermer (Director of the Skeptics Society)

41 Het feilbare brein: patern recognition
Een Type I fout of een vals positief: denken dat het geritsel in de bosjes een gevaarlijk roofdier is, terwijl het gewoon de wind is (goedkoop foutje)

42 Het feilbare brein: patern recognition
Een Type II fout of een vals negatief: denken dat het geritsel in de bosjes gewoon de wind is, terwijl het een gevaarlijk roofdier is (duur foutje)

43 Het probleem met patroon herkenning:
Het feilbare brein: patern recognition Het probleem met patroon herkenning: Het kritisch beoordelen of er sprake is van een Type I of een Type II fout is best moeilijk, (vooral in ‘split second life and death’ situaties), dus de default positie is om aan te nemen dat alle patronen echt zijn.

44 DEFAULT Het feilbare brein: patern recognition
Een Type I fout of een vals positief: denken dat het geritsel in de bosjes een gevaarlijk roofdier is, terwijl het gewoon de wind is (goedkoop foutje) DEFAULT Een Type II fout of een vals negatief: denken dat het geritsel in de bosjes gewoon de wind is, terwijl het een gevaarlijk roofdier is (duur foutje)

45 Het feilbare brein: patern recognition
Ook ervaren mensen en experts zien patronen en verbanden waar ze niet zijn. stress & lifestyle peptic ulcer

46 Oct 2005 Peptic ulcer – an infectious disease!
This year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine goes to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who with tenacity and a prepared mind challenged prevailing dogmas. By using technologies generally available (fibre endoscopy, silver staining of histological sections and culture techniques for microaerophilic bacteria), they made an irrefutable case that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori is causing disease. By culturing the bacteria they made them amenable to scientific study. In 1982, when this bacterium was discovered by Marshall and Warren, stress and lifestyle were considered the major causes of peptic ulcer disease. It is now firmly established that Helicobacter pylori causes more then 90% of duodenal ulcers. The link between Helicobacter pylori infection and peptic ulcer disease has been established through studies of human volunteers, antibiotic treatment studies and epidemiological studies. Oct 2005

47 (systeem 1 doet altijd mee!)
Het feilbare brein: patern recognition Ook slimme mensen houden er verkeerde ideeën op na, niet omdat ze dom of eigenwijs zijn, maar omdat het de meest logische conclusie is op basis van hun eigen ervaringen. (systeem 1 doet altijd mee!)

48 Evidence-based practice
Fase 1: Het ontwikkelen van kritisch en wetenschappelijk denken dat leidt tot een professioneel-kritische attitude met betrekking tot organisatievraagstukken Fase 2: Het kunnen formuleren van een expliciete vraag en op basis van deze vraag kunnen zoeken in online databases naar uitkomst van relevant wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Fase 3: Het kritisch kunnen beoordelen van wetenschappelijke en organizational evidence (critical appraisal) Fase 4: Uitkomst van wetenschappelijk onderzoek kunnen toepassen in de eigen beroepspraktijk (application of science)

49

50 EBMgt is a 5-step approach
Formulate an answerable question (PICOC) Search for the best available evidence Critically appraise the quality of the found evidence Integrate the evidence with managerial expertise and organizational concerns and apply Monitor and evaluate the results

51 Formulate a focused question

52 Focused question? Does team-building work?
What are the costs and benefits of self-steering teams? What are the success factors for culture change? Does management development improve the performance of managers? Does employee participation prevent resistance to change? How do employees feel about 360 degree feedback?

53 Foreground question? Does team-building work? What is a ‘team’?
What kind of teams? In what contexts/settings? What counts as ‘team-building’? What does ‘work’ mean? What outcomes are relevant? Over what time periods?

54 Answerable question: PICOC
P = Population I = Intervention or success factor C = Comparison O = Outcome C = Context

55 2. Finding the best available evidence

56 Searching evidence What do we search?

57 What do we search? Current Information Overview of a subject
General background Academic Information Statistical Information Theories about a subject Company information

58 Peer reviewed journals

59 Searching evidence Where do we search?

60 Searching for evidence
PRESENTATION ONE 4/04/2017 Searching for evidence Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

61 Databases ABI/INFORM Business Source Elite PsycINFO Web of Knowledge
ERIC Google Scholar

62 Searching for evidence
PRESENTATION ONE 4/04/2017 Searching for evidence Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice

63 Searching evidence How do we search? Search Strategy

64 Two types of search strategies
Search strategy Two types of search strategies Snowball method Building blocks method

65 Search strategy

66 Exercise: Search for evidence
Search in ABI/Inform: How many articles has Stephen Covey published in peer reviewed journals? How many of these articles are based on scientific research? Are there articles (by other authors) that are critical of Covey’s 7 Habits? How many of these critical articles are based on scientific research?

67 Search in ABI/Inform or BSE:
Exercise: Search for evidence Search in ABI/Inform or BSE: Search for peer reviewed research articles to answer the following question: What is the long term effect of a hostile take-over on the financial performance of the acquired organization? Use the following search terms: “hostile takeovers”, “financial performance”, “long term” How many studies did you find?

68 Evidence-based practice
Fase 1: Het ontwikkelen van kritisch en wetenschappelijk denken dat leidt tot een professioneel-kritische attitude met betrekking tot organisatievraagstukken Fase 2: Het kunnen formuleren van een expliciete vraag en op basis van deze vraag kunnen zoeken in online databases naar uitkomst van relevant wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Fase 3: Het kritisch kunnen beoordelen van wetenschappelijke en organizational evidence (critical appraisal) Fase 4: Uitkomst van wetenschappelijk onderzoek kunnen toepassen in de eigen beroepspraktijk (application of science)

69 Which design for which question?
Research designs Which design for which question?

70 What is the best design? Randomized controlled study?
Grounded theory approach? Cohort / panel study? Qualitative field research? Longitudinal study? Post-test only study? Survey? Action research? Case study?

71 What is the BEST car?

72 What is the best design? quants vs quallies, positivists vs post structuralist, etc

73 on the research question

74 Effect vs Non-effect

75 Types of questions Effect Does it work? Does it work better than ....?
Does it have an effect on ....? What is the success factor for ....? What is required to make it work ...? Will it do more good than harm?

76 Types of questions: non-effect
Needs: What do people want or need? Attitude: What do people think or feel? Experience: What are peoples’ experiences? Prevalence: How many / often do people / organizations ...? Procedure: How can we implement ...? Process: How does it work? Explanation: Why does it work? Economics: How much does it cost?

77 Internal validity

78 Internal validity internal validity = indicates to what extent the results of the research may be biased and is thus a comment on the degree to which alternative explanations for the outcome found are possible.

79

80 We are pattern seeking primates:
Causal relations We are pattern seeking primates: we are predisposed to see order and causal relations in the world

81 Considerations for research:
Causality effect size before and after measurement randomization, blinding, control group, measurements Considerations for research: Are the "cause" and the "effect” related? Does the "cause" precede the "effect" in time? Are there no plausible alternative explanations for the observed effect?

82 Bias & Confounding Research shows:
Shoe size > quality of handwriting Smoking youngsters > better lung function

83 Levels of internal validity

84 Which design for which question?
Explanation

85 Different types of research questions require different types of research designs, but ...

86 But 1: feasibility Best research design?

87 But 1: feasibility

88 Step 3: Critical appraisal of studies

89 How to read a research article?
Intermezzo How to read a research article?

90 Critical appraisal: quick and dirty
Is the study design appropriate to the stated aims? Are the measurements likely to be valid and reliable? Was there a relevant effect size? Is the outcome (population, type of organization) generalizable to your situation?

91 Levels of internal validity
Were there enough subjects in the study? Was a control group used? Were the subjects randomly assigned? Was a pretest used? Was the study started prior to the intervention or event? Was the outcome measured in an objective and reliable way? 6x yes = very high (A) 5x yes = high (A) 4-3x yes = limited (B) 2x yes = low (C) 1-0x yes = very low (D)

92 Critical appraisal questionnaires

93 CAT: Critically Appraised Topic

94 CAT: Critically Appraised Topic
A critically appraised topic (or CAT) is a structured, short (3 pages max) summary of evidence on a topic of interest, usually focused around a practical problem or question. A CAT is like a “quick and dirty” version of a systematic review, summarizing the best available research evidence on a topic. Usually more than one study is included in a CAT.

95 CAT: structure Background / context Question (PICOC) Search strategy
Results / evidence summary Findings Limitations Recommendation

96 CAT-walk