Article type
Year
Abstract
Objective: To look at a) who reviewers believe they are writing for and why; b) to elicit suggestions about the ways in which Cochrane reviews could be changed to make them more useful to the perceived target audience and c) to attempt to identify barriers that limit the perceived audience accessing the Cochrane Library.
Methods: A survey which used both fixed response and open ended questions on: target audience, reasons that this is considered to be the target audience, usefulness of the current format of Cochrane reviews, perceived barriers to accessing The Cochrane Library, and possibilities for Cochrane Review Groups to address these barriers. The survey was sent electronically to all 117 Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Review Group reviewers who had an email address recorded with the ARI Review Group.
Results: A total of 25 surveys were returned, a response rate of 21% so far (further followup is occurring). Two surveys are not included in the analysis: one was not completed, one was not completed in the format requested. The respondents included 8 ARI Review Group Editors, 17 other reviewers; main disciplines listed are 12 general practice/family medicine/primary health care doctors, 6 medical specialists, 5 epidemiology/statistics both doctors and non medical; mean length of time involved with The Cochrane Collaboration is 4.6 years (range 2- 10); settings in which respondents spend the majority of their work time ranked in order of priority are academic, administration/management, primary care setting, hospital, policy, other. The response to the question 'whom do you consider you are writing for when you undertake a Cochrane Review?' ranked in order of priority is doctors (average ranking 1.7), other health professionals (3.7), guideline producers (3.7), researchers (4.2), policy makers (4.3), consumers (4.9), text authors (6.2), managers and administrators (6.2), other (9.0).
The common theme identified in answers to the question 'why do you believe these are the groups you are writing for?' is: influence of evidence at the point of care will have most impact (52%). The two major themes identified in answer to the question 'Do you have any suggestions about the ways in which Cochrane reviews could be changed to make them more useful to your readers?' were: concise summaries that contain useful numbers (30%) and completeness of coverage of the topic (30%). The themes in answers to the question regarding barriers to use of the Cochrane Library identified access (48%) with a sub group citing cost (22%),and length and complexity of reviews (30%).
Conclusions: Most reviewers ranked active health professionals as their major target audience for reviews, and thought these would be used at the point of care. However, lack of complete coverage, the complexity of reviews and summaries, and lack of access were perceived as barriers to utilization at the point of care.
Methods: A survey which used both fixed response and open ended questions on: target audience, reasons that this is considered to be the target audience, usefulness of the current format of Cochrane reviews, perceived barriers to accessing The Cochrane Library, and possibilities for Cochrane Review Groups to address these barriers. The survey was sent electronically to all 117 Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Review Group reviewers who had an email address recorded with the ARI Review Group.
Results: A total of 25 surveys were returned, a response rate of 21% so far (further followup is occurring). Two surveys are not included in the analysis: one was not completed, one was not completed in the format requested. The respondents included 8 ARI Review Group Editors, 17 other reviewers; main disciplines listed are 12 general practice/family medicine/primary health care doctors, 6 medical specialists, 5 epidemiology/statistics both doctors and non medical; mean length of time involved with The Cochrane Collaboration is 4.6 years (range 2- 10); settings in which respondents spend the majority of their work time ranked in order of priority are academic, administration/management, primary care setting, hospital, policy, other. The response to the question 'whom do you consider you are writing for when you undertake a Cochrane Review?' ranked in order of priority is doctors (average ranking 1.7), other health professionals (3.7), guideline producers (3.7), researchers (4.2), policy makers (4.3), consumers (4.9), text authors (6.2), managers and administrators (6.2), other (9.0).
The common theme identified in answers to the question 'why do you believe these are the groups you are writing for?' is: influence of evidence at the point of care will have most impact (52%). The two major themes identified in answer to the question 'Do you have any suggestions about the ways in which Cochrane reviews could be changed to make them more useful to your readers?' were: concise summaries that contain useful numbers (30%) and completeness of coverage of the topic (30%). The themes in answers to the question regarding barriers to use of the Cochrane Library identified access (48%) with a sub group citing cost (22%),and length and complexity of reviews (30%).
Conclusions: Most reviewers ranked active health professionals as their major target audience for reviews, and thought these would be used at the point of care. However, lack of complete coverage, the complexity of reviews and summaries, and lack of access were perceived as barriers to utilization at the point of care.