Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research-Based-Decision-Making in Canadian Health Organizations: A Behavioural Approach

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decision making in Health sector is affected by a several elements such as economic constraints, political agendas, epidemiologic events, managers’ values and environment … These competing elements create a complex environment for decision making. Research-Based-Decision-Making (RBDM) offers an opportunity to reduce the generated uncertainty and to ensure efficacy and efficiency in health administrations. We assume that RBDM is dependant on decision makers’ behaviour and the identification of the determinants of this behaviour can help to enhance research results utilization in health sector decision making. This paper explores the determinants of RBDM as a personal behaviour among managers and professionals in health administrations in Canada. From the behavioural theories and the existing literature, we build a model measuring “RBDM” as an index based on five items. These items refer to the steps accomplished by a decision maker while developing a decision which is based on evidence. The determinants of RBDM behaviour are identified using data collected from 942 health care decision makers in Canadian health organizations. Linear regression is used to model the behaviour RBDM. Determinants of this behaviour are derived from Triandis Theory and Bandura's construct “self-efficacy.” The results suggest that to improve research use among managers in Canadian governmental health organizations, strategies should focus on enhancing exposition to evidence through facilitating communication networks, partnerships and links between researchers and decision makers, with the key long-term objective of developing a culture that supports and values the contribution that research can make to decision making in governmental health organizations. Nevertheless, depending on the organizational level, determinants of RBDM are different. This difference has to be taken into account if RBDM adoption is desired. Decision makers in Canadian health organizations (CHO) can help to build networks, develop partnerships between professionals locally, regionally and nationally, and also act as change agents in the dissemination and adoption of knowledge and innovations in health services. However, the research focused on knowledge use as a support to decision-making, further research is needed to identify and evaluate effective incentives and strategies to implement so as to enhance RBDM adoption among health decision makers and more theoretical development are to complete in this perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hemsley-Brown, J., Using research to support management decision making within the field of education. Manage. Decis. 43(5):691–705, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dobbins, M., et al., A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. Online J. Knowl. Synth. Nurs. 9:7, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Whynes, D., Policy forum: Health care reform: Towards an evidence-based national health service? Econ. J. 106(439):1702–1712, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pfeffer, J., and Sutton, R., Evidence-based management. Decision Making, Harvard Business Review, pp. 63–74, 2006.

  5. Kelemen, M., and Bansal, P., The conventions of management research and their relevance to management practice. Br. J. Manage. 13:97–108, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hewison, A., Evidence-based management in the NHS: Is it possible? J. Health Org. Manage. 18(5):336–348, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brazil, K., et al., From theory to practice: Improving the impact of health services research. BMC Health Serv. Res. 5(1):1, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kiefer, L., et al., Fostering evidence-based decision-making in Canada: examining the need for a Canadian population and public health evidence centre and research network. Can. J. Public Health 96(3):I1–40, following 200, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tavakoli, M., Davies, H. T., and Thomson, R., Decision analysis in evidence-based decision making. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 6(2):111–120, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Learmonth, M., and Harding, N., Evidence-based management: The very idea. Public Administration 84(2):245–266, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dobbins, M., et al., Use of systematic reviews in the development of new provincial public health policies in Ontario. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 20(4):399–404, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Estabrooks, C., et al., Decision aids: Are they worth it? A systematic review. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 6(3):170–182, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Estabrooks, C.A., Will evidence-based nursing practice make practice perfect? Can. J. Nurs. Res. 30(1):15–36, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sibbald, B., and Roland, M., Getting research into practice. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 3(1):15–21, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hayward, R. S., et al., Practice guidelines. What are internists looking for? J. Gen. Intern. Med. 11(3):176–178, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nutbeam, D., Improving the fit between research and practice in health promotion: Overcoming structural barriers. Can. J. Public Health 87(Suppl. 2):S18–23, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sackett, D. L., et al., Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312(7023):71–72, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Walshe, K., and Rundall, T. G., Evidence-based management: From theory to practice in health care. Milbank Q. 79(3):429–457, IV–V, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Niedzwiedzka, B. M., Barriers to evidence-based decision making among Polish healthcare managers. Health Serv. Manage. Res. 16(2):106–115, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lindstrom, R. R., Evidence-based decision-making in healthcare: Exploring the issues though the lens of complex, adaptive systems theory. Healthc. Pap. 3(3):29–35, 2003; discussion 66–71.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Mitton, C., and Donaldson, C., Health care priority setting: Principles, practice and challenges. Cost. Eff. Resour. Alloc. 2(1):3, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dobrow, M. J., et al., The impact of context on evidence utilization: A framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations. Soc. Sci. Med., 2006.

  23. Landry, R., Amara, N., and Lamari, M., Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Res. Policy 30:333–349, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Amara, N., Ouimet, M., and Landry, R., New evidence on instrumental, conceptual and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci. Commun. 26(1):75–106, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Holmberg, H., et al., Economic evaluation of screening for prostate cancer: A randomized population based programme during a 10-year period in Sweden. Health Policy 45(2):133–147, 1998.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I., Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Triandis, H., The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychol. Rev. 96:506–520, 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gagnon, M. P., and Godin, G., An adaptation of the theory of interpersonal behaviour to the study of telemedicine adoption by physicians. Int. J. Med. Inform. 71(2–3):103–115, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Emin, S., Les facteurs déterminants la création d’entreprise par les chercheurs publics: Application des modèles d’intension. Revue de l’Entrepreunariat 3(1):1–19, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jeffery, R. W., How can Health Behavior Theory be made more useful for intervention research? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 1(1):10, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bandura, A., Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, WH, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bandura, A., and A., L. E., Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(1):87–99, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., et al. Pre-competition imagery, self-efficacy and performance in collegiate golfers. J. Sports Sci. 20(9):697–705, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Benight, C. C., and Bandura, A., Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behav. Res. Ther. 42(10):1129–1148, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Casey, L. M., Oei, T. P., et al., An integrated cognitive model of panic disorder: The role of positive and negative cognitions. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 24(5):529–555, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. De Souza, G. A., Da Silva, A. M., et al., Self-efficacy as a mediator for improvement in oral health clinical indices. Pesqui. Odontol. Bras 16(1):57–62, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lavelle, E., Smith, J., et al., The writing approaches of secondary students. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 72(Pt 3):399–418, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Oetker-Black, S. L., et al., Preoperative teaching and hysterectomy outcomes. Aorn J. 77(6):1215–1218, 1221–1231, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shon, K. H., and Park, S. S., Medication and symptom management education program for the rehabilitation of psychiatric patients in Korea: The effects of promoting schedule on self-efficacy theory. Yonsei. Med. J. 43(5):579–589, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 33(8), 2003.

  41. Caron, F., Godin, G., et al., Evaluation of a theoretically based AIDS/STD peer education program on postponing sexual intercourse and on condom use among adolescents attending high school. Health Educ. Res. 19(2):185–197, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Helfand, M., Using evidence reports: Progress and challenges in evidence-based decision making. Health Aff. (Millwood) 24(1):123–127, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nicklin, W., and Stipich, N., Enhancing skills for evidence-based healthcare leadership: The Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA) program. Can. J. Nurs. Leadersh 18(3):35–44, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mitton, C., and Patten, S., Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think? J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 9(3):146–152, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Browman, G. P., Snider, A., and Ellis, P., Negotiating for change. The healthcare manager as catalyst for evidence-based practice: Changing the healthcare environment and sharing experience. Healthc. Pap. 3(3):10–22, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Scott's Government, Index Scott's Government Index, Southam Information Products Group, Don Mills, Ont., 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ahire, S., and Devaray, S., An empirical comparison of Statistical Construct Validation Approaches. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 48(3):319–329, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université Laval, Québec, Canada

    Jalila Jbilou, Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry

Authors
  1. Jalila Jbilou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nabil Amara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Réjean Landry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jalila Jbilou.

 

 

Table 6
Full size table
Appendix 1  
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jbilou, J., Amara, N. & Landry, R. Research-Based-Decision-Making in Canadian Health Organizations: A Behavioural Approach. J Med Syst 31, 185–196 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-007-9054-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-007-9054-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation