The JBI model 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
Cites
Statistics
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?
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].”
From Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018) · cites this paper as [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