Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 May 22;13(5):e071188.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071188.

Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review

Jarrod Dusin  1   2 , Andrea Melanson  3 , Lisa Mische-Lawson  2
Affiliations

Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review

Jarrod Dusin et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review current evidence-based practice (EBP) models and frameworks. Specifically, how EBP models and frameworks used in healthcare settings align with the original model of (1) asking the question, (2) acquiring the best evidence, (3) appraising the evidence, (4) applying the findings to clinical practice and (5) evaluating the outcomes of change, along with patient values and preferences and clinical skills.

Design: A Scoping review.

Included sources and articles: Published articles were identified through searches within electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) from January 1990 to April 2022. The English language EBP models and frameworks included in the review all included the five main steps of EBP. Excluded were models and frameworks focused on one domain or strategy (eg, frameworks focused on applying findings).

Results: Of the 20 097 articles found by our search, 19 models and frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The results showed a diverse collection of models and frameworks. Many models and frameworks were well developed and widely used, with supporting validation and updates. Some models and frameworks provided many tools and contextual instruction, while others provided only general process instruction. The models and frameworks reviewed demonstrated that the user must possess EBP expertise and knowledge for the step of assessing evidence. The models and frameworks varied greatly in the level of instruction to assess the evidence. Only seven models and frameworks integrated patient values and preferences into their processes.

Conclusion: Many EBP models and frameworks currently exist that provide diverse instructions on the best way to use EBP. However, the inclusion of patient values and preferences needs to be better integrated into EBP models and frameworks. Also, the issues of EBP expertise and knowledge to assess evidence must be considered when choosing a model or framework.

Keywords: health services administration & management; organisational development; patient-centered care; protocols & guidelines; quality in health care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Retrieval and selection process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Guyatt GH. Evidence-Based medicine. ACP Journal Club 1991;114:A16. 10.7326/ACPJC-1991-114-2-A16 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet 2017;390:415–23. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31592-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wolfe A. Institute of medicine report: crossing the quality chasm: a new health care system for the 21st century. Policy, Politics Nurs Pract 2001;2:233–5. 10.1177/152715440100200312 - DOI
    1. Zimerman AL. Evidence-Based medicine: a short history of a modern medical movement. AMA J Ethics 2013;15:71–6. 10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.1.mhst1-1301 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sackett DL. Evidence-Based medicine. Semin Perinatol 1997;21:3–5. 10.1016/s0146-0005(97)80013-4 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources