Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The achievement of universal and equitable access to healthcare, one of the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), is most likely to be realized through evidence-based health policies and actions. Evidence-based health policy briefs are widely used by WHO and health sectors of many countries, as the most important way of presenting evidence to health policy-makers. They provide potential options based on the best global evidence (such as systematic reviews) and local evidence on priority issues. Currently, there is no analysis of uptake of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health policy briefs.
Objectives: To explore the uptake of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health policy briefs based on the analysis of references.
Methods: Two researchers independently handsearched the Health System Evidence (HSE) and World Health Organization (WHO) databases before December 2014 and included health policy briefs in English and Chinese. Two reviewers independently completed data extraction and resolved disagreement by discussion.
Results: We included 106 health policy briefs in WHO and HSE from 2001 to 2014. All the policy briefs were published in English; 96% of policy briefs (102) reported the references and the total number was 5683 (range: 6 to 247, mean: 56). The main three sources were: websites (2315, 41%), journals (2165, 38%), and books (60, 1%). The main four types of references were: primary studies (3379, 59%), systematic reviews (317, 6%), clinical practice guidelines (29, 0.5%) and overviews of systematic reviews (14, 0.2%). Among these cited systematic reviews, 172 were Cochrane Reviews and 145 were non-Cochrane reviews. We did not find any network meta-analysis.
Conclusions: Most health policy briefs reported references, but the proportion of uptake of systematic reviews was low. We think health brief developers should propose the evidence-based policy options on the basis of up-to-date and high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analysis. As a next step, we will explore the details of cited systematic reviews on the topic and quality and how many policy options were supported the systematic reviews.
Objectives: To explore the uptake of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health policy briefs based on the analysis of references.
Methods: Two researchers independently handsearched the Health System Evidence (HSE) and World Health Organization (WHO) databases before December 2014 and included health policy briefs in English and Chinese. Two reviewers independently completed data extraction and resolved disagreement by discussion.
Results: We included 106 health policy briefs in WHO and HSE from 2001 to 2014. All the policy briefs were published in English; 96% of policy briefs (102) reported the references and the total number was 5683 (range: 6 to 247, mean: 56). The main three sources were: websites (2315, 41%), journals (2165, 38%), and books (60, 1%). The main four types of references were: primary studies (3379, 59%), systematic reviews (317, 6%), clinical practice guidelines (29, 0.5%) and overviews of systematic reviews (14, 0.2%). Among these cited systematic reviews, 172 were Cochrane Reviews and 145 were non-Cochrane reviews. We did not find any network meta-analysis.
Conclusions: Most health policy briefs reported references, but the proportion of uptake of systematic reviews was low. We think health brief developers should propose the evidence-based policy options on the basis of up-to-date and high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analysis. As a next step, we will explore the details of cited systematic reviews on the topic and quality and how many policy options were supported the systematic reviews.