Article type
Year
Abstract
Background and Objective: Systematic reviews about health systems aren’t always available when policymakers and stakeholders need them, or in formats they can use. One strategy that has been promoted to support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking is the development of online ‘one-stop-shops’ that facilitate timely access to relevant reviews. Researchers at the Program in Policy Decision-making and McMaster Health Forum, with partners in a number of high-, middle- and low-income countries developed Health Systems Evidence (HSE)—a ‘one-stop-shop’ of the best available research evidence about health systems. Our objective is to describe the development, content and usage of HSE.
Methods: HSE was developed in several stages: (1) A taxonomy of health system arrangements and implementation strategies, and document types was developed; (2) Searches of online databases were conducted alongside hand searches, continuous scanning of journals, listservs and websites (3) Two independent assessors reviewed content and coded those meeting inclusion criteria based on the taxonomies; (4) An approach to ensure HSE is continuously updated with new content, and to provide ‘added value’ to existing content was developed. Descriptive statistics about HSE content and registered users’ usage are collected each month.
Results: The HSE taxonomy is organized by governance, financial and delivery arrangements in health systems as well as implementation strategies that can support these arrangements. There are 6601 documents (2487 of which are systematic reviews) that are searchable based on their relevance to the taxonomy. Currently 4855 users are registered, including 1222 policymakers, 1203 health care professionals and 623 managers. Over 15 000 searches have been conducted to date, and the majority of users are from Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and Australia.
Conclusions: The ongoing development and evaluation of HSE and similar efforts should be prioritized as a way to ensure these approaches are optimally designed and implemented.
Methods: HSE was developed in several stages: (1) A taxonomy of health system arrangements and implementation strategies, and document types was developed; (2) Searches of online databases were conducted alongside hand searches, continuous scanning of journals, listservs and websites (3) Two independent assessors reviewed content and coded those meeting inclusion criteria based on the taxonomies; (4) An approach to ensure HSE is continuously updated with new content, and to provide ‘added value’ to existing content was developed. Descriptive statistics about HSE content and registered users’ usage are collected each month.
Results: The HSE taxonomy is organized by governance, financial and delivery arrangements in health systems as well as implementation strategies that can support these arrangements. There are 6601 documents (2487 of which are systematic reviews) that are searchable based on their relevance to the taxonomy. Currently 4855 users are registered, including 1222 policymakers, 1203 health care professionals and 623 managers. Over 15 000 searches have been conducted to date, and the majority of users are from Canada, the U.S., the U.K. and Australia.
Conclusions: The ongoing development and evaluation of HSE and similar efforts should be prioritized as a way to ensure these approaches are optimally designed and implemented.