Article Content
It is my great privilege to be the incumbent Regional Chair of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) European centers in this 20th anniversary year. The 15 centers from nine European countries have established themselves as a firm and cohesive collaborative network. Beginning in 2012 with the inaugural meeting of the European centers in Antwerp, Belgium, the biannual meetings of the European centers have provided stimulating collegiate discussion and debate, and the opportunity to form effective partnerships, the results of which are evident in the publication of several JBI protocols and systematic reviews1-5 and the involvement of many European centers in other collaborative research and knowledge transfer projects to date. It would be fair to say that at the time of writing, some European counties and the politico-economic union of 28 European countries, "the European Union", are experiencing challenging and uncertain times. It can be reassuring then to be part of a collaboration where despite differences in individual countries' political, economic and healthcare systems, there is commonality in some of the key healthcare issues being faced, and therefore scope for collaborative efforts focusing on the evidence base of these key issues.
Increased life expectancy and an aging population across Europe, as is being experienced by other parts of the world, are associated with a prediction of soaring healthcare costs, due in part to the increased prevalence of non-communicable diseases.6 Technological advances in healthcare are further increasing short-term costs, but it is hoped they will have a beneficial impact on healthcare systems' efficiency in the longer-term.6 It is no surprise then that healthy aging, supported self-management, and innovative models of health and care delivery are key European research priorities7 and areas in which the JBI European centers are actively collaborating.
A further commonality across, but not limited to, European countries is the barriers to implementing evidence-based healthcare, an issue highlighted in this journal earlier this year.8 Evidence-based healthcare is not a new concept, its philosophical origins having been linked to 19th century Paris and earlier,9 and yet a range of barriers still exist. Evidence synthesis, one of the core activities of the JBI, and conducted by and between many of the European centers, can help to overcome some of the barriers to implementing evidence-based healthcare. The vast amount of research evidence being produced, combined with ever-increasing pressures on healthcare practitioners' time, means that good quality research syntheses can generate clear recommendations for practice that can be utilized by healthcare professionals for making decisions about evidence-based healthcare in the practice setting, negating the need to locate and interpret overwhelming amounts of primary sources. There have also been recent calls for systematic reviews to clearly discuss the policy and practice implications of their findings to enhance their influence on healthcare policy.10 JBI systematic reviews, with clear summaries of findings utilizing the GRADE system and clearly articulated implications for practice and research,11 arguably have a huge potential to influence healthcare policy.
As we celebrate the last 20 years, the strong collaborative network that is the JBI European Regional Centers can look forward to the next 20 years of collaboration with each other, with the wider international Joanna Briggs Collaboration, and with the Joanna Briggs Institute itself, in the shared pursuit of improving global healthcare outcomes.
References
1. Queiros P, Santos E, Apostolo J, Cardoso D, Cunha M, Rodrigues M. The effectiveness of cleansing solutions for wound treatment: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2014; 12 10:121-151. [Context Link]
2. Apostolo J, Mendes A, Bath-Hextall F, Rodrigues R, Santos J, Cardoso D. The use of non-pharmacological nursing interventions on the comfort of cancer patients: A comprehensive systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2013; 11 2:372-388. [Context Link]
3. Hakonsen SJ, Pedersen PU, Bath-Hextall F, Kirkpatrick P. Diagnostic test accuracy of nutritional tools used to identify undernutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2015; 13 4:141-187. [Context Link]
4. Cooper L, Ryan C, Ells L, Hamilton S, Atkinson G, Cooper K, et al Weight-loss interventions for overweight/obese adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a mixed methods systematic review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2016; 14 5:57-67. [Context Link]
5. Klugarova J, Klugar M, Mareckova J, Cooper K. Methodology of the systematic review development; comparison of influence of inpatient and outpatient physical therapy in older adults after total hip replacement on quality of life and gait measures: Systematic review partial results. Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg 2015; 65 5: section 1. [Context Link]
6. Maisonneuve C, J. Martins. 2013. Public Spending on Health and Long Term Care: A New Set of Projections. OECD Economic Policy Paper No. 6. Paris: OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and development). [Context Link]
7. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016-2017. Health, demographic change and well-being. European Commission. [Context Link]
8. Apostolo J, Cardoso D, Rodrigues MA. It takes three to tango: embracing EBP. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2016; 14 4:1-2. [Context Link]
9. Sacket DL, Rosenburg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312:71. [Context Link]
10. Kite J, Indig D, Mihrshahi S, Milat A, Bauman A. Assessing the usefulness of systematic reviews for policymakers in public health: A case study of overweight and obesity prevention interventions. Prevent Med 2015; 81:99-107. [Context Link]
11. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual, 2014 Edition. The Joanna Briggs Institute, Australia. [Context Link]