Cited by 451Health Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation Science

The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare

Pearson, Alan, Wiechula, Rick, Court, Anthea, Lockwood, Craig·2005·International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

Abstract

Evidence-based healthcare as it is contemporarily conceived is based on the view that clinical decisions should be based on the best available scientific evidence but recognising patient preferences, the context of healthcare and the judgement of the clinician. The ongoing debate on the nature of evidence for practice across all of the health professions is influenced by the experience of clinicians in everyday practice who, in using the evidence, assert that there are diverse sources of research-based and non-research-based evidence and that the process of evidence-based practice should be placed within a broader context that is grounded in practice; recognises different evidentiary bases; and is directed towards improving global health across vasty different practice contexts. We present a developmental framework of evidence-based practice that builds and expands on the work of leaders in the field of evidence-based healthcare; is contextualised; is inclusive of diverse forms of evidence; and incorporates understandings of knowledge transfer and utilisation. The conceptual model attempts to situate healthcare evidence and its role and use within the complexity of practice settings globally.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1479-6988.2005.00026.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • If authors have a question addressing the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness or effectiveness of a certain treatment or practice, then a systematic review is likely the most valid approach.

    “If the authors have a question addressing the feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness or effectiveness of a certain treatment or practice, then a systematic review is likely the most valid approach [11,23].”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 31 · Cited by 451

Authors
Pearson, A., Wiechula, R., Court, A., & Lockwood, C.
Affiliations
Royal Adelaide Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Pearson, Alan
Venue
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Published
2005-09
Volume
3
Issue
8
Pages
207-215
ISSN
  • 1744-1595 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-1609
OpenAlex
W2122543210
Cited by
451
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 21
FWCI
8.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
evidence-based care, evidence-based practice, conceptual model, clinical decision-making, patient preferences, knowledge transfer, knowledge application, global health, practice environment

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