Maximizing the Impact of Systematic Reviews in Health Care Decision Making: A Systematic Scoping Review of Knowledge-Translation Resources
Maximizing the Impact of Systematic Reviews in Health Care Decision Making: A Systematic Scoping Review of Knowledge-Translation Resources
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00622.x
复制
发表时间：
2011-03-01
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
Light, Kate
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chambers, Duncan;Wilson, Paul M.;Light, Kate
背景：政策制定者使用系统审查的障碍可以通过资源来克服，这些资源可以更直接地适应他们的需要来调整和提出审查结果。我们进行了系统的范围审查，以确定此类知识翻译资源并对其进行评估。方法：如果资源完全或主要基于系统审查并针对国家或地方层面的卫生保健政策制定者，则有资格纳入本研究。通过筛选卫生技术评估机构和系统审查制作者的网站，并辅之以电子邮件调查，确定了资源。还搜索了Cochrane Colloquum和HTA International的电子数据库和会议记录，以查找对知识翻译资源的已发表和未发表的评价。结果：确定了20个知识翻译资源，其中11个资源被归类为摘要，6个资源被归类为概述，3个资源被归类为政策摘要。例如，通过评估其方法质量或评估其结论的可靠性或其对特定环境的概括性，资源增加了系统审查的价值。文献检索发现了四项已发表的关于知识翻译资源的评价研究，通过对摘要的筛选和与作者的联系，又发现了三项未发表的研究。虽然也有一些基于回顾的资源被用来帮助实际决策的例子，但大多数研究报告都是关于这项服务的感知有用性的。结论：系统的综述生产者提供了各种资源来帮助政策制定者，其中有重点的摘要是最常见的。需要对这些资源进行更多的评估，以确保用户的需求得到满足，证明其影响，并证明其资金的合理性。
Context:Barriers to the use of systematic reviews by policymakers may be overcome by resources that adapt and present the findings in formats more directly tailored to their needs. We performed a systematic scoping review to identify such knowledge‐translation resources and evaluations of them.Methods:Resources were eligible for inclusion in this study if they were based exclusively or primarily on systematic reviews and were aimed at health care policymakers at the national or local level. Resources were identified by screening the websites of health technology assessment agencies and systematic review producers, supplemented by an email survey. Electronic databases and proceedings of the Cochrane Colloquium and HTA International were searched as well for published and unpublished evaluations of knowledge‐translation resources. Resources were classified as summaries, overviews, or policy briefs using a previously published classification.Findings:Twenty knowledge‐translation resources were identified, of which eleven were classified as summaries, six as overviews, and three as policy briefs. Resources added value to systematic reviews by, for example, evaluating their methodological quality or assessing the reliability of their conclusions or their generalizability to particular settings. The literature search found four published evaluation studies of knowledge‐translation resources, and the screening of abstracts and contact with authors found three more unpublished studies. The majority of studies reported on the perceived usefulness of the service, although there were some examples of review‐based resources being used to assist actual decision making.Conclusions:Systematic review producers provide a variety of resources to help policymakers, of which focused summaries are the most common. More evaluations of these resources are required to ensure users’ needs are being met, to demonstrate their impact, and to justify their funding.