The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Knowledge to Action?
Abstract
Health services can and should be improved by applying research findings about best practice. This book explores why it proves notoriously difficult to implement change based on research evidence in the face of strong professional views and complex organizational structures. It draws on a large body of evidence acquired in the course of nearly fifty case studies using data from 1,400 interviews with doctors, nurses, and managers, as well as observations and documentary analysis. Using qualitative methods to study hospital and primary care settings, the book aims to shed light on why attempts to introduce evidence-based practice in the UK NHS succeeded in some cases where in others it faltered. By opening up the intricacies and complexities of change in the NHS, it reveals the limitations of simplistic approaches to implementing research or introducing evidence-based health care. The book provides an analysis rooted in a range of theoretical perspectives that underlines the intimate links between organizational structures and cultures and the utilization of knowledge, and draws conclusions significant for other areas of public management. The findings have implications for the utilization of knowledge in situations where there is a professional tradition working within a politically sensitive blend of public service, managerial accountability, and technical expertise.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Previous research indicates that where there is strong research with clinical consensus it is more likely to be used in practice [31].”
From The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework (2013) · cites this paper as [31]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
GREENHALGH, T., JACKSON, C., SHAW, S., & JANAMIAN, T. (2016) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12197 · Cited by 1,288
Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges
Head, B. W. (2010) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001 · Cited by 541
Deal, C., Tony, M., Höybye, C., Allen, D. B., Tauber, M., & Christiansen, J. S. (2013) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3888 · Cited by 380
Research impact: a narrative review
Greenhalgh, T., Raftery, J., Hanney, S. R., & Glover, M. J. (2016) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8 · Cited by 338
Rycroft-Malone, J., Seers, K., Chandler, J., Hawkes, C. A., Crichton, N., Allen, C., Bullock, I., & Strunin, L. (2013) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-28 · Cited by 303
Metadata
- Authors
- Dopson, S., & Fitzgerald, L.
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2005-05-12
- OpenAlex
- W2484783149
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 13.41
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Keywords
- evidence-based practice, knowledge application, evidence-based practice implementation, health care reform, organizational culture, organizational structure, professional tradition, National Health Service, hospital management, primary care, managerial accountability, public sector management, knowledge management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
