Using evidence syntheses: views and experiences of public health decision makers and review authors in the United Kingdom

Article type
Authors
Francis D1, Turley R2, Thomson H3, Weightman A4, Moore L5, Waters E1, Doyle J1, Anderson R6, Shemlit I7
1Cochrane Public Health Group, Australia
2Cardiff University / Cochrane Public Health Group, United Kingdom
3Glasgow University / Cochrane Public Health Group, United Kingdom
4Cardiff University, United Kingdom
5Glasgow University, United Kingdom
6University of Exeter / Cochrane Public Health Group, United Kingdom
7University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Abstract
Background:
Review questions initiated by policy makers and evidence users in public health and related fields are often broad and incorporate high levels of complexity. Preparing rigorous systematic reviews to address these policy relevant questions can present many methodological challenges. A qualitative study was conducted in order to advertise Cochrane Public Health Group activities. The project sought to elicit perceptions and experiences of public health decision makers and review authors with respect to the use and production of systematic reviews. This presentation will focus on findings relating to the understanding and utility of systematic reviews in public health and how this might be improved.

Methods:
Telephone interviews were conducted with 14 policy makers and 13 systematic review authors from the United Kingdom (UK). Purposive sampling was used to select users and funders of public health research and systematic reviewers with varying degrees of experience. Interview data were coded using framework analysis.

Results:
Difficulties with applying and using systematic reviews to inform policy reiterated well established challenges to bridging the research-policy gap. Yet policy makers reported that systematic reviews were an integral and valuable component for informing decision making. Participants believed that the utility of reviews could be improved by addressing questions beyond effectiveness, incorporating diverse evidence types and providing brief, accessible, and timely summaries addressing specific policies and contexts. Greater collaboration between policy makers and reviewers and a greater focus on communication could help overcome some barriers. Review authors spoke of the varying challenges in preparing a complex review which is rigorous, relevant, timely and affordable.

Conclusions:
These findings reflect growing recognition, in and beyond the Cochrane Collaboration that systematic review authors need to be increasingly mindful and considerate of the needs of end users in order to meet challenging and complex requirements.