Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction: Systematic reviews in obstetrics and neonatology have been available to practitioners for some years now through the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database, the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth and Effective Care of the Newborn Infant.
Objective: To determine current awareness of, access to and use of these resources among Australian neonatologists and obstetricians.
Methods: We contacted all 104 neonatologists and a random sample of 145 obstetricians. Using a structured telephone interview, we questioned respondents about information sources they use to keep up with their field and solve clinical problems. We then questioned them directly about the resources listed above. Clinicians who used these resources were asked how often and why they used them, and whether using them had changed their clinical practice.
Results: 90% of eligible clinicians completed the interview. 21% of neonatologists and 17% of obstetricians mentioned systematic reviews without prompting from the interviewer. When questioned about specific resources, 72% (95% CI 64% to 81%) of neonatologists and 44% (95% CI 36% to 53%) of obstetricians report using systematic reviews in one form or another. Neonatologists consulted a textbook more frequently than a database by a ratio of 2:1. Patient care was the most frequently cited reason for consulting systematic reviews. Of those neonatologists who used systematic reviews, half could cite an example of a treatment policy they had altered in response to a systematic review. Three factors independently predicted the use of systematic reviews among neonatologists: attendance at Australian Perinatal Society meetings; authorship of research, and familiarity with computers.
Discussion: There is evidence that Australian neonatologists and obstetricians are using systematic reviews and modifying their practice accordingly. To maximise the benefit to patient care, however, there needs to be wider dissemination and implementation of evidence from databases of systematic reviews.
Objective: To determine current awareness of, access to and use of these resources among Australian neonatologists and obstetricians.
Methods: We contacted all 104 neonatologists and a random sample of 145 obstetricians. Using a structured telephone interview, we questioned respondents about information sources they use to keep up with their field and solve clinical problems. We then questioned them directly about the resources listed above. Clinicians who used these resources were asked how often and why they used them, and whether using them had changed their clinical practice.
Results: 90% of eligible clinicians completed the interview. 21% of neonatologists and 17% of obstetricians mentioned systematic reviews without prompting from the interviewer. When questioned about specific resources, 72% (95% CI 64% to 81%) of neonatologists and 44% (95% CI 36% to 53%) of obstetricians report using systematic reviews in one form or another. Neonatologists consulted a textbook more frequently than a database by a ratio of 2:1. Patient care was the most frequently cited reason for consulting systematic reviews. Of those neonatologists who used systematic reviews, half could cite an example of a treatment policy they had altered in response to a systematic review. Three factors independently predicted the use of systematic reviews among neonatologists: attendance at Australian Perinatal Society meetings; authorship of research, and familiarity with computers.
Discussion: There is evidence that Australian neonatologists and obstetricians are using systematic reviews and modifying their practice accordingly. To maximise the benefit to patient care, however, there needs to be wider dissemination and implementation of evidence from databases of systematic reviews.