Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: In recent years, several systematic reviewsmeta- analyses (SR-MAs) have been published addressing various agri-food public health topics. It is not known to what extent agri-food public health policy-makers are aware of SR-MAs and how their evidence could be used to inform policy. Furthermore, the traditional format in which SR-MAs are disseminated (i.e. journal articles)may present a barrier towards their use among these end-users.
Objectives: The objectives are this study were to investigate the extent to which policy makers in Canada are aware of and have used evidence from SR-MAs to inform their work, and to gather their feedback on the utility of SR-MAs and three corresponding summary formats to inform policy.
Methods: An online survey was conducted from July to September, 2012 with policy makers, advisors, analysts and program managers and directors in Canada—from all levels of government and industry. Nine questions pertained to familiarity with and use of SR-MAs and other knowledge syntheses. Participants were also asked to provide feedback on a SR-MA article and three corresponding summary formats: a summary-of-findings table, a one-page summary and a three-page summary with supporting contextual information (e.g. costs, practicality, public sensitivity). Semi-structured interviews were held with six participants interested in discussing their survey responses in more detail.
Results: The survey was completed by 92 individuals, comprisedmainly of policy analysts (32.6%), policy advisors (32.6%), and program managers/directors (15.2%). Most participants had previously read a systematic review (73.9%), and 37.8% had used evidence from a SR-MA to inform a policy. Given a choice between the four formats, the three-page summary with contextual information was the preferred resource to inform policy (50.5%).
Conclusions: We found a high awareness about SR-MAs and other knowledge synthesis methods among participants in this study. The results indicate that disseminating evidence from SR-MAs in more user-friendly formats can maximize its potential uptake by end-users.
Objectives: The objectives are this study were to investigate the extent to which policy makers in Canada are aware of and have used evidence from SR-MAs to inform their work, and to gather their feedback on the utility of SR-MAs and three corresponding summary formats to inform policy.
Methods: An online survey was conducted from July to September, 2012 with policy makers, advisors, analysts and program managers and directors in Canada—from all levels of government and industry. Nine questions pertained to familiarity with and use of SR-MAs and other knowledge syntheses. Participants were also asked to provide feedback on a SR-MA article and three corresponding summary formats: a summary-of-findings table, a one-page summary and a three-page summary with supporting contextual information (e.g. costs, practicality, public sensitivity). Semi-structured interviews were held with six participants interested in discussing their survey responses in more detail.
Results: The survey was completed by 92 individuals, comprisedmainly of policy analysts (32.6%), policy advisors (32.6%), and program managers/directors (15.2%). Most participants had previously read a systematic review (73.9%), and 37.8% had used evidence from a SR-MA to inform a policy. Given a choice between the four formats, the three-page summary with contextual information was the preferred resource to inform policy (50.5%).
Conclusions: We found a high awareness about SR-MAs and other knowledge synthesis methods among participants in this study. The results indicate that disseminating evidence from SR-MAs in more user-friendly formats can maximize its potential uptake by end-users.