Share Your Success & Resources with NAMIHP!
Have you generated formal or informal evidence relevant to Mobile Integrated Health or Community Paramedicine (MIH/CP)? Do you feel a specific resource is helpful for MIH programs or those with complex health needs?
NAMIHP welcomes content submissions from stakeholders in the field of mobile integrated healthcare and community paramedicine. We aim to grow evidence-based research and resources, and welcome practice-based findings, implementation tools, or other resources relevant to MIH/CP work.
Use the form below to share your resource and a description of your findings. Submissions will be evaluated against our evidence criteria and could be highlighted as a resource for NAMIHP members or featured on the NAMIHP Blog. Someone from NAMIHP will contact you regarding your submission.
Evidence Guidance Used to Evaluate Resources and Research
Why is evidence guidance important for Mobile Integrated Health?
As mobile integrated health and community paramedicine (MIH/CP) models grow, healthcare stakeholders will want to know how strong the evidence is for MIH care models. As evidence, tools, and resources are leveraged by MIH/CP programs nationwide to grow mobile integrated health, levels of evidence are significant in correlating practice to expected outcomes. To address this need, NAMIHP has provided Evidence Guidance and Criteria below.
What are the levels of evidence?
STRONG EVIDENCE
- Randomized Control Trial (RCT) – Concept tested in rigorous, randomized effectiveness studies — including cluster randomized controlled trials and randomized step wedge, factorial, or quasi-experimental designs. Studies with these designs offer very strong evidence and should be ready to implement with local adaptation.
- Non-Randomized Trial with Comparison Group – Concept tested in effectiveness studies with comparison groups — including non-randomized trials, before-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and repeated measures studies. May be ready to implement with local adaptation.
- Meta-Analysis of Multiple Studies – One or more meta-analyses of studies of an intervention showing effectiveness. These studies offer very strong evidence and should be ready to implement with local adaptation.
- Systematic Review of Multiple Studies (with evidence grading) – A systematic review of studies, giving a level of evidence for each study included. Likely ready to implement with local adaptation.
MODERATE EVIDENCE
- Rigorous Observational Study – Concept demonstrated to be effective in one or more rigorous observational studies with comparison groups and appropriate adjustment for bias and confounding. May be ready to implement with local adaptation.
- Systematic Review of Multiple Studies (without evidence grading) – A systematic review of studies, not giving a level of evidence for each study included. May be ready to implement with local adaptation.
PROMISING EVIDENCE
- Case Study – One or more rigorous real-world case studies. Promising idea ready for further testing and small-scale implementation with local adaptation.
- Non-Systematic Review of Multiple Studies (with evidence grading) – A non-systematic review of studies, with evidence grading. Promising ideas ready for further testing and small-scale implementation with local adaptation.
EXPERT OPINION
- Individual Report, Commentary, or Perspective – Expert or group of experts who, based on their experience, present a new idea, concept or model, which has not been formally evaluated. Promising idea needing further testing or research.
- Non-Systematic Review of Studies of Multiple Studies (without evidence grading) – Non-systematic review of studies without evidence grading. Promising Ideas needing further testing or research.
VARYING
- Toolkits and Guides – These formats often contain multiple resources that have differing levels of evidence.
Additional Resources
The Levels of Evidence and their role in Evidence-Based Medicine