Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Chile, a middle-income country, is currently facing a health reform, for which, authorities have prioritized 27 relevant health conditions. Policy makers are interested in using the best available evidence to make decisions about the efficacy of specific interventions in these conditions. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials are the best quality evidence and The Cochrane Collaboration is committed to making them available. One debate at the last Colloquium, was how the Collaboration responds to the requirements of its different 'consumers' (clinicians, policy makers, etc) and the possible mismatch between policy makers' and reviewers' agendas.
Objectives: To assess to what extent Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) respond to the needs of policy makers in the Chilean health reform.
Methods: To gather the best evidence on the efficacy of specific interventions for the prioritized health conditions, we created Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions and developed a search strategy for each. We searched for SRs in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 2) and MEDLINE simultaneously. One researcher carried out all searches and scanned the hits to select those matching our questions. We present a descriptive analysis of the volume of SRs and CSRs found.
Results: We assessed 30 PICO questions. Of 46 SRs found, 50% were CSRs. Twenty-one questions (70%) had at least one SR. Seven questions had CSRs, seven had non-CSRs and seven had both. CSRs covered 14 (46.7%) of the 30 questions searched. Of 23 CSRs, 18 had information to make a decision regarding efficacy, whereas five did not. The best represented topics were asthma (eight CSRs) and respiratory distress in the new born (three CSRs). Underrepresented topics were ophthalmologic and dental topics.
Conclusions: CSRs are helpful in policy decision making when available. However, several topics considered relevant in Chilean health reform were under-represented, stressing the importance of matching research areas to the needs of Cochrane 'consumers'.
Objectives: To assess to what extent Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) respond to the needs of policy makers in the Chilean health reform.
Methods: To gather the best evidence on the efficacy of specific interventions for the prioritized health conditions, we created Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions and developed a search strategy for each. We searched for SRs in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 2) and MEDLINE simultaneously. One researcher carried out all searches and scanned the hits to select those matching our questions. We present a descriptive analysis of the volume of SRs and CSRs found.
Results: We assessed 30 PICO questions. Of 46 SRs found, 50% were CSRs. Twenty-one questions (70%) had at least one SR. Seven questions had CSRs, seven had non-CSRs and seven had both. CSRs covered 14 (46.7%) of the 30 questions searched. Of 23 CSRs, 18 had information to make a decision regarding efficacy, whereas five did not. The best represented topics were asthma (eight CSRs) and respiratory distress in the new born (three CSRs). Underrepresented topics were ophthalmologic and dental topics.
Conclusions: CSRs are helpful in policy decision making when available. However, several topics considered relevant in Chilean health reform were under-represented, stressing the importance of matching research areas to the needs of Cochrane 'consumers'.