Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:48:40.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup Report on Dissemination and Impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Alicia Granados ,
Egon Jonsson ,
H. David Banta ,
Lisa Bero ,
Ann Bonair ,
Mme. Camille Cochet ,
Nick Freemantle ,
Roberto Grilli ,
Jeremy Grimshaw  and
Emma Harvey
...Show all authors
Alicia Granados
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment (CAHTA), Barcelona, Spain
Egon Jonsson
Affiliation:
Swedish Council for Health Care Technology Assessment (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden
H. David Banta
Affiliation:
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, The Netherlands
Lisa Bero
Affiliation:
Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, California
Ann Bonair
Affiliation:
National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden
Mme. Camille Cochet
Affiliation:
National Agency for the Development of Medical Evaluation (ANDEM), Paris, France
Nick Freemantle
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics, York, England
Roberto Grilli
Affiliation:
Mario Negri Institute, Milan, Italy
Jeremy Grimshaw
Affiliation:
Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland
Emma Harvey
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics, York, England
Ragnar Levi
Affiliation:
Swedish Council for Health Care Technology Assessment (SBU)Stockholm
Deborah Marshall
Affiliation:
Swedish Council for Health Care Technology Assessment (SBU)Stockholm
Andrew Oxman
Affiliation:
National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
Lionel Pasart
Affiliation:
National Agency for the Development of Medical Evaluation (ANDEM), Paris, France
Virpi Räisänen
Affiliation:
FinOHTA/STAKES, Helsinki, Finland
Elisa Rius
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment (CAHTA), Barcelona, Spain
Josep A. Espinas
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment (CAHTA), Barcelona, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The objective of health technology assessment (HTA) is to support decision making in health care. HTA does not claim to provide a definite solution to a health care problem, but to assist decision makers with evidence-based information about the clinical, ethical, social, and economic implications of the development, diffusion, and use of health care technology.

Type
Special Section: Report from the Eur-Assess Project Eur-Assess
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Spring 1997 , pp. 220 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Advocacy Institute. Smoking control media advocacy guidelines. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 1989.Google Scholar
2.American Cancer Society. Smoke signals: The smoking control media handbook. New York: American Cancer Society, 1987.Google Scholar
3.Atkin, C. K. Mass media information campaign effectiveness. In Rice, R. E., & Paisley, W. J., (eds.), Public information campaigns. Newbury Park: Sage, 1981.Google Scholar
4.Bandura, A.Social foundations of thought and action. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
5.Bandura, A.Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 1977; 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Beaudry, J. S.The effectiveness of continuing medical education: aquantitative synthesis. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 1989; 9, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Bernard-Bonnin, A. C., Stachenko, S., Bonin, D., et al. Self-management teaching programs and morbidity of pediatric asthma: A meta-analysis. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 1995, 95, 34–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Bero, L., Freemantle, N., Grilli, R., et al. Closing the gap between research and practice: A review of theories of professional behavioral change and interventions to promote implementation of research findings by health care professionals. BMJ. In press.Google Scholar
9.Berwick, D. M.Controlling variation in health care: A consultation from Walter Shewhart. Medical Care, 1991, 29, 1212–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Bobbio, M., Demichelos, B., et al. Completeness of reporting trial results: Effect on physicians’ willingness to prescribe. Lancet, 1994, 343, 1209–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Bogart, L.Strategy in advertising: Matching media and messages to markets and motivtions. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books, 1990.Google Scholar
12.Boruch, R., & Boe, E.On ‘good, certain, and easy government': the policy use of statistica data and reports. In Sechrest, L., Backer, T. E., Rogers, E. M., Campbell, T. F., Grady, M. L., (eds.), Effective dissemination of clinical and health information. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AHCPR publication no. 95–0015, 1994, 23–35.Google Scholar
13.Brown, S. A.Meta-analysis of diabetes patient education research: Variations in intervention effects across studies. Research Nursing and Health, 1992, 15, 409–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Buntinx, F., Winkens, R., Grol, R., et al. Influencing diagnostic and preventive performance in ambulatory care by feedback and reminders: A review. Family Practice, 1993, 10, 219–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Chelimsky, E. The politics of disseminating on the hill: what works and what doesn't. In: Sechrest, L., Backer, T. E., Rogers, E. M., Campbell, T. F., Grady, M. L., (eds.), Effective dissemination of clinical and health information. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AHCPR Pub. No. 95–0015, 1994, 37–40.Google Scholar
16.Church, M.Return of whooping cough. British Medical Journal, 1979, 285, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Cronholm, M., & Sandell, R.Scientific information: A review of the research. Journal of Communication, 1981, 31, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Culbertson, H. M., & Stempel, G. H.Media malaise: Explaining personal optimism and societal pessimism about health care. Journal of Communication, 1985, 35, 180–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Culbertson, H. M., & Stempel, G. H.Possible barriers to agenda setting in medical news. Newspaper Research Journal, 1984, 5, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Davis, D. A., Thomson, M. A., Oxman, A. D., & Haynes, R. B.Changing physician performance: A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 274, 700–05.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Davis, K. Using research in policy formulation. In Aiken, L. H., Mechanic, D., (eds.), Application of social science to clinical medicine and health policy. Rutgers University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
22.Davis, R. M.Health education on the six-o'clock news: Motivating television coverage of news in medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 262, 1036–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Deming, W. E.Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Centre for Applied Engineering Studies, 1986.Google Scholar
24.Devine, E. C.Effects of psychoeducational care for adult surgical patients: A meta-analysis of 191 studies. Patient Education and Counseling, 1992, 19, 129–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Devine, E. C., & Reifschneider, E.A meta-analysis of the effects of psychoeducational care in adults with hypertension. Nursing Research, 1995, 44, 237–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.De Vos Meiring, P., & Wells, I. P.The effect of radiology guidelines for general practitioners in Plymouth. Clinical Radiology, 1990, 42, 327–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Dunwoody, S.A question of accuracy. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 1982, PC-25, 196–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Effective Health Care. Implementing clinical guidelines: Can guidelines be used to im prove clinical practice? Bulletin No 8. Leeds: University of Leeds, 1994.Google Scholar
29.Egger, G., Donovan, R. J., Spark, R.Health and the media: Principles and practice for health promotion. Sydney: McGraw-Hill, 1993.Google Scholar
30.Fahey, T., Griffiths, S., et al. Evidence based purchasing: Understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 1995, 311, 1056–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.Google Scholar
32.Flay, B.Mass media and smoking cessation: A critical review. American Journal of Public Health, 1987, 77, 153–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Fox, R. D., Mazmanian, P. E., Putnam, R. W., (eds.). Changing and learning in the lives of physicians. New York: Praeger, 1989.Google Scholar
34.Fraley, P. C.The education and training of science writers. Journalism Quarterly, 1963, 40, 323–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Freemantle, N., Bero, L., Grilli, R., Grimshaw, J., Oxman, A. (eds.). Effective professional practice module. In: The Cochrane database of systematic reviews [database on disk and CDROM]. The Cochrane Collaboration, Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software, 1995. Available from BMJ Publishing Group, London.Google Scholar
36.Freemantle, N., Grilli, R., Grimshaw, J. M., Oxman, A. D., for the Cochrane Collaboration on Effective Professional Practice (CCEPP). Implementing the findings of medical research. The Cochrane Collaboration on Effective Professional Practice. Quality in Health Care, 1995, 4, 45–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Freemantle, F., Harvey, E., Grimshaw, J., et al. The effectiveness of printed educational materials in changing the behavior of healthcare professionals [revised 28 July 1995]. In: Freemantle, N., Bero, L., Grilli, R., Grimshaw, J., Oxman, A., (eds.), Effective professional practice module. In: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [database on disk and CDROM]. The Cochrane Collaboration; Issue 2, Oxford: Update Software; 1995. Available from BMJ Publishing Group, London.Google Scholar
38.Freimuth, V. S., Greenberg, R. H., DeWitt, J., et al. Covering cancer: Newspapers and the public interest. Journal of Communications, 1984, 34, 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., Rogers, C. L., (eds.). Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York: The Free Press, 1986.Google Scholar
40.Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., et al. Health and medicine on television. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 305, 901–04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Glanz, K., Lewis, F. M., & Rimer, B. K. Theory, research, and practice in health education: Building bridges and forging links. In: Glanz, K., Lewis, F. M., Rimer, B. K., (eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990, 17–32.Google Scholar
42.Green, L. W., Eriksen, M. P., & Schor, E. L.Preventive practices by physicians: Behavioral determinants and potential interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 1988, 4, S101–S107.Google ScholarPubMed
43.Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M.Health promotion planning: An educational and environmental approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1991.Google Scholar
44.Green, L. W., Kreuter, M. W., Deeds, S. G., & Partridge, K. D.Health education planning: A diagnostic approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1980.Google Scholar
45.Greenberg, M.Impediments to basing government health policies on science in the United States. Social Science and Medicine, 1992, 35, 531–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Greer, A. L.The state of the art vs. the state of the science: The diffusion of new medical technologies into practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47.Grilli, R., & Lomas, J.Evaluating the message: The relationship between compliance rate and the subject of a practice guideline. Medical Care, 1994, 32, 202–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48.Grimshaw, J., Freemantle, N., Langhorne, P., & Song, F.Complexity and systematic reviews: Report to the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.Google Scholar
49.Gyorkos, T. W., Tannenbaum, T. N., Abrahamowicz, M., et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of immunization delivery methods. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 1994, 85(suppl. 1), S14–S30.Google ScholarPubMed
50.Healton, C. G., & Messeri, P.The effect of video interventions on improving knowledge and treatment compliance in the sexually transmitted disease clinic setting: Lesson for HIV health education. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 1993, 20, 70–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.Hirano, P. C., Laurent, D. D., & Lorig, K.Arthritis patient education studies. 1987 1991: A review of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling, 1994, 24, 9–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52.Johnston, M. E., Langton, K. B., Haynes, R. B., et al. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome: A critical appraisal of research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1994, 120, 135–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53.Kemper, D. W., Lorig, K., & Mettler, M.The effectiveness of medical self-care interventions: A focus on self-initiated response to symptoms. Patient Education and Counseling, 1993, 21, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54.Kingdon, J. W.Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1984, 205–18.Google Scholar
55.Kotler, P. Social marketing of health behavior. In: Frederiksen, L. W., Solomon, L. J., Brehony, K. A., (eds.), Marketing health behavior: Principles, techniques, and applictions. New York: Plenum Press, 1984, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56.Kottke, T. E., Battista, R. N., DeFriese, G. H., & Brekke, M. L.Attributes of successful smoking cessation interventions in medical practice: A meta-analysis of 39 controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 2882–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57.Kritchevsky, S. B., & Simmons, B. P.Continuous quality improvement: Concepts and applications for physician care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 266, 1817–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58.Kunz, R. A., & Oxman, A. D. Empirical evidence of selection bias in studies of the effects of health care: a systematic review. Presented at the Cochrane Colloquium, Oslo, 5–8 10, 1995. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
59.Lomas, J.Diffusion, dissemination and implementation: Who should do what? In: Warren, K. S., & Mosteller, F. (eds.), Doing more good than harm: The evaluation of health care interventions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1993, 703, 226–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60.Lomas, J.Words without action? The production, dissemination, and impact of consensus recommendations. Annual Review of Public Health, 1991, 12, 41–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61.Lunn, T. Segmenting and constructing markets. In: Worcester, R. M., & Downham, J., (eds.), Consumer market research handbook. Amsterdam, North Holland, 1986, 287–424.Google Scholar
62.Macharia, W. M., Leon, G., Rowe, B. H., et al. An overview of interventions to improve compliance with appointment keeping for medical services. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 267, 1813–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63.McDonald, C. J.Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non perfectibility of man. New England Journal of Medicine, 1976, 295, 1351–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64.McQuail, D. The influence and effects of mass media. In: Curran, J., et al. (eds.), Mass communication and society. London: Edward Arnold Ltd, 1977, 70–94.Google Scholar
65.Mittman, B. S.,Tonesk, X.,& Jacobson, P. D.Implementing clinical practice guidelines: Social influence strategies and practitioner behavior change. Quality Review Bulletin, 1992, 18, 413–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66.Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G.Survey methods in social investigation, 2nd ed.Aldershot: Gower, 1971.Google Scholar
67.Mugford, M., Banfield, P., & O'Hanlon, M.Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: A review. British Medical Journal, 1991, 303, 398–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68.Mullen, P. D., Green, L. W., & Persinger, G. S.Clinical trials of patient education for chronic conditions: A comparative meta-analysis of intervention types. Preventive Medicine, 1985, 14, 753–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69.Mullen, P. D., Mains, D. A., & Velez, R.A meta-analysis of controlled trials of cardiac patient education. Patient Education Counseling, 1992, 19, 143–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70.Mulrow, C. D.Rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 1994, 309, 597–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71.National Research Council, Committee on Risk Perception and Communication. Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.Google Scholar
72.Naylor, C. D., Chen, E., et al. Measured enthusiasm: Does the method of reporting trial results alter perception of therapeutic effectiveness? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992, 117, 916–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
73.Nease, R. F., Kneeland, T., O'Connor, G. T., et al. for the Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team. Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina: Implications for clinical practice guidelines. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 273, 1185–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74.Nelkin, D.Selling science. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1987.Google Scholar
75.Neufeld, V. R. Patient education: A critique. In: Sackett, D. L., & Haynes, R. B., (eds.), Compliance with therapeutic regimens. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976, 83–92.Google Scholar
76.Norton, P. G., & Dempsey, L. J.Self-audit: Its effect on quality of care. Journal of Family Practice, 1985, 21, 289–91.Google ScholarPubMed
77.O'Halloran, C. M., & Altmaier, E. M.The efficacy of preparation for surgery and invasive medical procedures. Patient Education Counseling, 1995, 25, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78.Oxman, A. D., Davis, D. A., for the Evidence-Based Care Resource Group. Evidence based care: 4, improving performance: How can we improve the way we manage this problem? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1994; 150, 1793–6.Google Scholar
79.Oxman, A. D., Guyatt, G. H., Cook, D. J., et al. An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1993, 46, 987–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
80.Oxman, A. D., Thomson, M. A., Davis, D. A., & Haynes, R. B.No magic bullets: A systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1995, 153, 1423–31.Google ScholarPubMed
81.Padgett, D., Mumford, E., Hynes, M., & Carter, R.Meta-analysis of the effects of educational and psychosocial interventions on management of diabetes mellitus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1988, 41, 1007–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
82.Palmer, R. H., Louis, T. A., Hsu, L. N., et al. A randomized controlled trial of quality assurance in sixteen ambulatory care practices. Medical Care, 1985, 23, 751–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
83.Pfund, N., & Hofstadter, L.Biomedical innovation and the press. Journal of Communication, 1981, 31, 138–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
84.Phillips, K. A., & Bero, L. A.Improving the use of information in medical effectiveness research. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 1996, 8, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
85.Posavac, E. J., Sinacore, J. M., Brotherton, S. E., et al. Increasing compliance to medical treatment regimes: A meta-analysis of program evaluation. Eval Health Prof, 1985, 8, 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
86.Prochaska, J. O.Systems of psychotherapy: A trans-theoretical analysis. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1979.Google Scholar
87.Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C.In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychology, 1992, 09 47, 1102–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
88.Rich, R. F., & Goldsmith, N. H. The utilization of policy research. In: Nagel, S. S. (ed.), Encyclopedia of policy studies. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1983, 93–115.Google Scholar
89.Risk assessment: Report of a Royal Society Study Group. London: The Royal Society of Medicine, 1983.Google Scholar
90.Rogers, E., & Storey, J. Communication campaigns. In: Chaffed, S., & Berber, C., (eds.), Handbook of communication science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987.Google Scholar
91.Rogers, E.Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1983.Google Scholar
92.Rosenstock, I. M. The health belief model: Explaining health behavior through expectancies. In: Glanz, K., Lewis, F. M., & Rimer, B. K., (eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990, 39–62.Google Scholar
93.Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L.Advertising and promotion management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987.Google Scholar
94.Roter, D. Which facets of communication have strong effects on outcome: A meta-analysis. In: Stewart, M., & Roter, D., (eds.), Communicating with medical patients. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989, 183–96.Google Scholar
95.Rothschild, M. L.Marketing communications: From fundamentals to strategies. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Company, 1987.Google Scholar
96.Ryan, M., & Dunwoody, S. L.Academic and professional training patterns of science writers. Journalism Quarterly, 1975, 52, 239–46, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
97.Sabatier, P. A. Toward better theories of the policy process. Political Science and Politics, 1991, 06, 147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
98.Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (eds.). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.Google Scholar
100.Sandman, P. M., Einstein, N. O., & Klutz, M. L.Public response to the risk from geological radon. Journal of Communication, 1987, 37, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
99.Sandman, P. M., Einstein, N. O., et al. Public response to the risk from geological radon. Journal of Communication, 1987, 37, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
102.Silagy, C., Lancaster, T., Fowler, G., Spiers, I.Effectiveness of training health professionals to provide smoking cessation interventions: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. In: Lancaster, T., Silagy, C. (eds.) Tobacco addiction module of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, [updated 2 December 1996]. Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CDROM]. The Cochrane Collection: Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 1997. Updated quarterly.Google Scholar
101.Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hays, R. H., & Altman, D. G.Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 273, 408–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
103.Smith, F. A., Trivax, G., Zuehlke, D. A., et al. Health information during a week of television. New England Journal of Medicine, 1972, 286, 516–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
104.Solomon, M. A., & Chordal, S. M.Designing health policy research for utilization. Health Policy Quarterly, 1981, 1, 216–37.Google ScholarPubMed
105.Soumerai, S. B., McLaughlin, T. O., & Avorn, J.Improving drug prescribing in primary care: A critical analysis of the experimental literature. Milbank Memorial Quarterly, 1989, 67, 268–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
106.Suls, J., & Wan, C. K.Effects of sensory and procedural information on coping with stressful medical procedures and pain: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 1989, 57, 372–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
107.Tankard, J. W., & Ryan, M.News source perceptions of accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 1974, 51, 219–25, 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
108.Theis, S. L., & Johnson, J. H.Strategies for teaching patients: A meta-analysis. Clinical Nurse Specalist, 1995, 9, 100–5, 120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
109.Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1974, 185, 1124–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
110.Waddell, D. L.The effects of continuing education on nursing practice: A meta-analysis. Journal of Continuing Education Nursing, 1991, 22, 113–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
111.Wade, S., & Schramm, W.The mass media as sources of public affairs, science, and health knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1969, 33, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
112.Wallack, L. Media advocacy: Promoting health through mass communication. In: Glanz, K., Lewis, F. M., & Rimer, B. K. (eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990, 370–86.Google Scholar
113.Warner, K. E.Television and health education: Stay tuned. American Journal of Public Health, 1987, 77, 140–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
114.Weiss, C. H.Congressional committees as users of analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1989, 8, 411–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
115.Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J.Truth tests and utility tests: Decision makers’ frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review, 1980, 45, 302–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
116.Wensing, M., & Grol, R.Single and combined strategies for implementing changes in primary care: A literature review. International Journal of Quality in Health Care, 1994, 6, 115–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
117.Whiting-O'Keefe, Q. E., Henke, C., & Simborg, D. W.Choosing the correct unit of analysis in medical care experiments. Medical Care, 1984, 22, 1101–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
118.Windahl, S., Signitzer, B. H.,& Olson, J. T.Using communication theory: An introduction to planned communication. Newbury Park: Sage, 1992.Google Scholar
119.Winsten, J. A. Science and the media: The boundaries of truth. Health Affairs, 1985, Spring, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
120.Wright, W. R.Mass media as sources of medical information. Journal of Communication, 1975, 25, 171–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed