Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study.
Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study.
复制标题
知识经纪是否可以提高快速审查建议的质量？研究前后。
DOI：
10.1186/s13643-017-0411-0
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-28
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Turner T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Moore G;Redman S;D'Este C;Makkar S;Turner T
快速审查越来越多地被用来帮助政策制定者在短时间内获得研究成果。明确阐述审查的目的、问题、范围、方法和报告格式被认为可以提高审查结果的质量和普遍性。该研究的目的是从潜在审稿人的角度探讨知识经纪在提高快速审稿提案的感知清晰度方面的有效性。为了进行这项研究，我们利用了证据检查计划，政策制定者起草一份审查提案（知识经纪前提案），并与知识经纪人进行 1 小时的会议，知识经纪人根据讨论重新起草提案（知识经纪后提案）。我们邀请了 30 名之前进行过证据检查评审的审稿人来检查 60 份事前和 60 份事后知识经纪提案的质量。审稿人不知道他们收到的审稿建议是事前知识经纪还是事后知识经纪。使用六点李克特量表，评审员对六个问题进行评分，检查有关评审目的、问题、范围、方法和格式的信息的清晰度，以及评审员对他们能够满足政策制定者需求的信心。每个审稿人都从 60 篇审稿中随机排序，分配了两个前置和两个后置知识经纪提案，确保没有审稿人收到来自同一审稿的前置和后置知识经纪提案。结果表明，知识经纪显着提高了所有六个问题的得分，解决了审查提案的清晰度和满足政策制定者需求的信心；六个域从前到后的平均变化为 0.68 到 1.23。这项研究发现，知识经纪提高了证据检查快速审查提案中提供的信息的清晰度，并提高了审查者对他们能够满足政策制定者需求的信心。需要进一步的研究来确定知识经纪过程如何实现这些改进，并测试研究结果在其他快速审查计划中的适用性。本文的在线版本 (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0411-0) 包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
Rapid reviews are increasingly being used to help policy makers access research in short time frames. A clear articulation of the review’s purpose, questions, scope, methods and reporting format is thought to improve the quality and generalisability of review findings. The aim of the study is to explore the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in improving the perceived clarity of rapid review proposals from the perspective of potential reviewers. To conduct the study, we drew on the Evidence Check program, where policy makers draft a review proposal (a pre knowledge brokering proposal) and have a 1-hour session with a knowledge broker, who re-drafts the proposal based on the discussion (a post knowledge brokering proposal). We asked 30 reviewers who had previously undertaken Evidence Check reviews to examine the quality of 60 pre and 60 post knowledge brokering proposals. Reviewers were blind to whether the review proposals they received were pre or post knowledge brokering. Using a six-point Likert scale, reviewers scored six questions examining clarity of information about the review’s purpose, questions, scope, method and format and reviewers’ confidence that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Each reviewer was allocated two pre and two post knowledge brokering proposals, randomly ordered, from the 60 reviews, ensuring no reviewer received a pre and post knowledge brokering proposal from the same review. The results showed that knowledge brokering significantly improved the scores for all six questions addressing the perceived clarity of the review proposal and confidence in meeting policy makers’ needs; with average changes of 0.68 to 1.23 from pre to post across the six domains. This study found that knowledge brokering increased the perceived clarity of information provided in Evidence Check rapid review proposals and the confidence of reviewers that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Further research is needed to identify how the knowledge brokering process achieves these improvements and to test the applicability of the findings in other rapid review programs. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0411-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.