Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial

Perrier, Laure; Persaud, Nav; Thorpe, Kevin E.; Straus, Sharon E.

doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0303-4

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The next phases include completing a survey of perceptions of barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers in these provinces; integrating the survey and review results to develop a format for systematic reviews and test its usability using heuristic and individual usability testing; and conducting a randomised trial to assess a traditional systematic review format compared with the new format on the ability of health care managers and policy makers to understand the evidence in the review and apply it to a relevant health care decision-making scenario. We have done similar work to create a format for clinicians and found that it influences their ability to apply the evidence from a systematic review to a clinical scenario [ 20 , 60 – 64 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWe completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.MethodsWe used the Arksey and O’Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.ResultsWe identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.ConclusionsSystematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors noted that for future RCTs, recruitment may be more successful achieved from randomizing divisions versus individuals since the nature of policymaking is quite complex and often not completed at the individual level. Additionally, we identified other studies that were not focused on policymakers but rather, clinicians [34, 35] or the public [36]. These studies demonstrated that evidence summaries can improve understanding of research evidence within these populations; however, use of evidence in decision-making was not assessed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSystematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers’ use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers’ use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products.MethodsWe included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of “evidence summary,” “policy brief,” or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers’ understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries.ResultsOur database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes.ConclusionsEvidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.Trial registrationThe protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122)Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0530-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Strategies are required to address barriers to research use, such as access, timeliness, user-friendliness and relevance of evidence [ 8 , 18 ], faced by decision-makers. In order to overcome such barriers, researchers have examined ways to effectively package the results from systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness to meet the needs of patients [ 19 – 21 ], healthcare professionals [ 22 – 24 ] and policy-makers [ 25 ]. For example, decision support aids and plain language summaries have been found to support the uptake of systematic review findings by patients and providers, respectively [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge translation for realist reviews: a participatory approach for a review on scaling up complex interventions

Boyko

Riley

Willis

et al. 2018

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundKnowledge syntheses that use a realist methodology are gaining popularity. Yet, there are few reports in the literature that describe how results are summarised, shared and used. This paper aims to inform knowledge translation (KT) for realist reviews by describing the process of developing a KT strategy for a review on pathways for scaling up complex public health interventions.MethodsThe participatory approach used for the realist review was also used to develop the KT strategy. The approach included three main steps, namely (1) an international meeting focused on interpreting preliminary findings from the realist review and seeking input on KT activities; (2) a targeted literature review on KT for realist reviews; and (3) consultations with primary knowledge users of the review.ResultsThe international meeting identified a general preference among knowledge users for findings from the review that are action oriented. A need was also identified for understanding how to tailor findings for specific knowledge user groups in relation to their needs. The literature review identified four papers that included brief descriptions of planned or actual KT activities for specific research studies; however, information was minimal on what KT activities or products work for whom, under what conditions and why. The consultations revealed that KT for realist reviews should consider the following: (1) activities closely aligned with the preferences of specific knowledge user groups; (2) key findings that are sensitive to factors within the knowledge user’s context; and (3) actionable statements that can advance KT goals, activities or products. The KT strategy derived from the three activities includes a planning framework and tailored KT activities that address preferences of knowledge users for findings that are action oriented and context relevant.ConclusionsThis paper provides an example of a KT strategy for realist reviews that blends theoretical and practical insights. Evaluation of the strategy’s implementation will provide useful insights on its effectiveness and potential for broader application.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0374-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial

Cited by 8 publications

References 20 publications

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review

Knowledge translation for realist reviews: a participatory approach for a review on scaling up complex interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About