Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study

Implementation Science

Jacques Fortin¹  Sharlene Stayberg²  Caroline Blaine³  Moriah E. Ellen⁴  Gertrude Bourdon⁵  Linda Hubert⁶  Brenda Hemmelgarn⁷  Thomas Noseworthy⁷  Jayna Holroyd-Leduc⁸  Marcello Tonelli⁸  Mark Chignell⁹  Monika Kastner^1,10  Laure Perrier^1,10  Michael Hillmer^1,10  Mathieu Ouimet^1,11  Jamie Park^1,12  Julia E. Moore^1,12  Jemila Hamid^1,12  Andrea C. Tricco^1,12  Alekhya Mascarenhas Johnson^1,12  Christine Marquez^1,12  Sabrina Jassemi^1,12  Sharon E. Straus^1,12  John N. Lavis^1,13  Bev Holmes^1,14  Victoria Schuckel^1,15  Anne Hayes^1,16  Andrea Proctor^1,16  David Moher^1,17  Brian Hutton^1,17  Ian D. Graham^1,17  Karen Michell^1,18 

[1] Agence de la santé et des services sociaux Montérégie;Alberta Health;BMJ Knowledge Centre;Ben Gurion University;Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec (CHUQ);Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS);Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary;Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary;Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto;Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto;Laval University;Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital;McMaster Health Forum, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, and Department of Political Science, McMaster University;Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research;Ministry of Health;Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care;Ottawa Hospital Research Institute;Sinai Health System;

关键词: Knowledge translation;    Knowledge synthesis;    Decision making;    Policy makers;    Health care managers;    Evidence implementation;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-018-0779-9

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background Systematic reviews are infrequently used by health care managers (HCMs) and policy-makers (PMs) in decision-making. HCMs and PMs co-developed and tested novel systematic review of effects formats to increase their use. Methods A three-phased approach was used to evaluate the determinants to uptake of systematic reviews of effects and the usability of an innovative and a traditional systematic review of effects format. In phase 1, survey and interviews were conducted with HCMs and PMs in four Canadian provinces to determine perceptions of a traditional systematic review format. In phase 2, systematic review format prototypes were created by HCMs and PMs via Conceptboard©. In phase 3, prototypes underwent usability testing by HCMs and PMs. Results Two hundred two participants (80 HCMs, 122 PMs) completed the phase 1 survey. Respondents reported that inadequate format (Mdn = 4; IQR = 4; range = 1–7) and content (Mdn = 4; IQR = 3; range = 1–7) influenced their use of systematic reviews. Most respondents (76%; n = 136/180) reported they would be more likely to use systematic reviews if the format was modified. Findings from 11 interviews (5 HCMs, 6 PMs) revealed that participants preferred systematic reviews of effects that were easy to access and read and provided more information on intervention effectiveness and less information on review methodology. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 55.7 (standard deviation [SD] 17.2) for the traditional format; a SUS score < 68 is below average usability. In phase 2, 14 HCMs and 20 PMs co-created prototypes, one for HCMs and one for PMs. HCMs preferred a traditional information order (i.e., methods, study flow diagram, forest plots) whereas PMs preferred an alternative order (i.e., background and key messages on one page; methods and limitations on another). In phase 3, the prototypes underwent usability testing with 5 HCMs and 7 PMs, 11 out of 12 participants co-created the prototypes (mean SUS score 86 [SD 9.3]). Conclusions HCMs and PMs co-created prototypes for systematic review of effects formats based on their needs. The prototypes will be compared to a traditional format in a randomized trial.

【 授权许可】

Unknown