In 2005, Pearson et al. presented a developmental framework of evidence-based practice that sought to situate healthcare evidence and its role and use within the complexity of practice settings globally. A decade later, it was deemed timely to re-examine the Model and its component parts to determine whether they remain relevant and a true and accurate reflection of where the evidence-based movement is today.Methods:
A two-phase process was employed for this project. Phase 1 involved a citation analysis, conducted using the index citation of the original source article on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Model by Pearson et al. The databases searched were Web of Science and Google Scholar from year of publication (2005) to July 2015. Duplicates and articles in languages other than English were removed, and all results were imported and combined in an Excel spreadsheet for review, coding and interpretation. Phase 2 (model revision) occurred in two parts. Part 1 involved revision of the Model by an internal working group. This revised version of the Model was then subjected to a process of focus group discussion (Part 2) that engaged staff of the Joanna Briggs Collaboration during the 2015 annual general meeting. These data were recorded then transcribed for review and consideration.Results:
The citation analysis revealed that the Model was primarily utilized to conceptualize evidence and evidence-based healthcare, but that language used in relation to concepts within the Model was variable. Equally, the working group and focus group feedback confirmed that there was a need to ensure the language utilized in the Model was internationally appropriate and in line with current international trends. This feedback and analysis informed the revised version of the JBI Model.Conclusion:
Based on the citation analysis, working group and focus group feedback the new JBI Model for Evidence Based Healthcare attempts to utilize more internationally appropriate language to detail the intricacies of the relationships between systems and individuals across different settings and the need for contextual localization to enable policy makers and practitioners to make evidence-based decisions at the point of care.