Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review

Systematic Reviews

  ^{1    1    2    3} 

[1] 0000 0004 0606 323X, grid.415052.7, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK;0000000121901201, grid.83440.3b, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, UCL, London, UK;0000000121901201, grid.83440.3b, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL and Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL, ICTM, 2nd Floor, 90 High Holborn, WC1V 6LJ, London, UK;

关键词: Communication;    Dissemination;    Clinical studies;    Patients;    Medical professionals;    Policymakers;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13643-019-1065-x

来源: publisher

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundPhase III randomised controlled trials aim not just to increase the sum of human knowledge, but also to improve treatment, care or prevention for future patients through changing policy and practice. To achieve this, the results need to be communicated effectively to several audiences. It is unclear how best to do this while not wasting scarce resources or causing avoidable distress or confusion. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness, acceptability and resource implications of different methods of communication of clinical research results to lay or professional audiences, to inform practice.MethodsWe will systematically review the published literature from 2000 to 2018 for reports of approaches for communicating clinical study results to lay audiences (patients, participants, carers and the wider public) or professional audiences (clinicians, policymakers, guideline developers, other medical professionals). We will search Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources. One reviewer will screen titles and abstracts for potential eligibility, discarding only those that are clearly irrelevant. Potentially relevant full texts will then be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers. Data extraction will be carried out by one reviewer using EPPI-Reviewer. Risk of bias will be assessed using the relevant Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, ROBINS-1, AXIS Appraisal Tool or Critical Appraisals Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist, depending on study design. We will decide whether to meta-analyse data based on whether the included trials are similar enough in terms of participants, settings, intervention, comparison and outcome measures to allow meaningful conclusions from a statistically pooled result. We will present the data in tables and narratively summarise the results. We will use thematic synthesis for qualitative studies.DiscussionDeveloping the search strategy for this review has been challenging as many of the concepts (patients, clinicians, clinical studies, and communication) are widely used in literature that is not relevant for inclusion in our review. We expect there will be limited comparative evidence, spread over a wide range of approaches, comparators and populations and, therefore, do not anticipate being able to carry out meta-analysis.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42019137364).

【 授权许可】

CC BY