Suporte para uso de evidências de pesquisa nas Américas através do "one-stop shop" eletrônico: EVIPNet VHL

Moat, Kaelan A.; Lavis, John N.

doi:10.1590/0102-311x00110214

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As far as we are aware, no other studies have been published that compare the use of different databases or search engines for finding health system evidence. Other studies have described the databases to which we compared PDQ-Evidence, but not specifically in relation to health system evidence, other than for Health Systems Evidence and EVIPNet VHL [ 4 – 6 ], both of which focus exclusively on health system evidence. Similarly, other studies have user tested other databases, for example, Cochrane Library [ 7 ], but not in comparison to another database and not with a focus on health system evidence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence

Johansen

Rada

Rosenbaum

et al. 2018

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip.MethodsWe recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements.ResultsA total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence.ConclusionsPDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people.Trial registrationThe trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence

Johansen

Rada

Rosenbaum

et al. 2018

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Chile recognizes a high demand for knowledge dissemination through networks of health professionals and organizations. This, combined with its goal of advancing evidence-based decisionmaking in health care, led Chile to start collaborating with EVIPNet-Chile in 2011 (Moat & Lavis, 2014). This portal, along with the Sectoral Intranet (Salunet), or the institutional web portal, assists with the timely retrieval and exchange of new, existing, or inaccessible literature and information (Espinoza, & Alcayaga, 2015;Capurro, 2007).…”

Section: Other Efforts: Evidence-based Medicine Clinical Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This portal, along with the Sectoral Intranet (Salunet), or the institutional web portal, assists with the timely retrieval and exchange of new, existing, or inaccessible literature and information (Espinoza, & Alcayaga, 2015;Capurro, 2007). These virtual libraries, combined with several online workshops and seminars, are helpful not only to policymakers but also to patients, key stakeholders, and medical professionals, especially those in remote areas who may lack access to continuing medical education and training, both in Chile and across Latin America (Keane, 2007;Moat & Lavis, 2014).…”

Section: Other Efforts: Evidence-based Medicine Clinical Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Strategic Program for Chilean Health Information Technology: Environmental Scan and Key Informant Interviews

Taylor¹,

Fischer²,

Gračner³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

show abstract

Fostering access to and use of contextualised knowledge to support health policy-making: lessons from the Policy Information Platform in Nigeria

Uneke

Langlois

Uro-Chukwu

et al. 2019

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Contextualising evidence to inform policy-making is increasingly recognised as key to developing and implementing effective health policies. Creating a one-stop shop for evidence is an approach that can facilitate timely access to the best evidence to inform policy decisions. We report outcomes after implementation of the Policy Information Platform (PIP), a pilot one-stop evidence repository in Nigeria designed to alleviate barriers to accessing policy-relevant knowledge. Methods This cross-sectional study involved five phases, namely (1) consultation with Nigerian policy-makers to identify priority policy issues, areas of health policy information needs, and challenges and capacity constraints in accessing evidence for policy-making; (2) a stakeholder engagement workshop to formally launch the PIP; (3) extraction of data and other information from scientific articles, policy briefs, evaluation reports, grey literature and health policy documents relevant to policy-making in Nigeria (identified by Google and PubMed searches and by examination of websites of relevant Nigerian government ministries, agencies and parastatals), for use in developing the PIP website; (4) promotion of the PIP in national and state health policy meetings; and (5) evaluation of the PIP using a stakeholder survey questionnaire distributed via email and critical appraisal of the grey literature included in the PIP using the authority, accuracy, coverage, objectivity, date and significance (AACODS) checklist. Results Priority policy areas identified by policy-makers were disease control and prevention, population health issues and health administration. Challenges identified by policy-makers were a lack of adequate capacity to access policy-relevant evidence and transform the evidence into policy. Policy-makers suggested using systematic reviews, policy briefs and rapid response mechanisms and involving policy-makers in research as ways of increasing evidence uptake for policy. A total of 126 policy-relevant, peer-reviewed scientific articles, 85 health policy documents and 201 policy-relevant grey literature documents were selected for inclusion in the PIP. Of the 195 individuals contacted via email to evaluate the PIP, 31 (15.9%) provided a response. Respondents noted that the PIP facilitated access to information based on local evidence and context-sensitive data. Barriers identified included lack of knowledge about the PIP and limited capacity of end-users to use the data compiled in the platform. Conclusion An easily accessible one-stop shop of policy-relevant evidence can considerably improve policy-makers’ access to evidence for use in policy-making and practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0431-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Suporte para uso de evidências de pesquisa nas Américas através do "one-stop shop" eletrônico: EVIPNet VHL

Cited by 6 publications

References 14 publications

A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence

A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence

Developing a Strategic Program for Chilean Health Information Technology: Environmental Scan and Key Informant Interviews

Fostering access to and use of contextualised knowledge to support health policy-making: lessons from the Policy Information Platform in Nigeria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About