Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Despite advances in reporting and valuing systematic reviews, they are used infrequently by health care managers (HCMs) and policy makers (PMs) in decision making.
Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare the impact of a novel systematic review format with the traditional systematic review format on the ability of HCMs and PMs to understand the evidence in the review and apply it to a relevant health care decision making scenario.
Methods: We conducted 2 parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with HCMs and PMs in Canada and the UK. HCMs and PMs were randomized separately to the intervention (novel format) or the control group (traditional format). The primary outcome was the proportion of HCMs or PMs who appropriately considered and applied the evidence from each systematic review format to the scenario presented.
Results: A total of 257 completed the RCTs (100 HCMs and 157 PMs). 18.6% were from Alberta, 16.0% from British Columbia, 57.6% from Ontario, 3.9% from Quebec, 0.4% from UK, and 3.5% from other provinces. Of the 157 PMs that participated in the RCT, 31.2% worked in their field for 6-10 years, 62.4% received training in research methodologies, and 41.4% were mostly familiar with systematic reviews. Of the 100 HCMs, 27.9% worked in their field for >20 years, 59.0 % received training in research methodologies, and 41.0% were mostly familiar with systematic reviews. Final results of the RCTs will be available at the Cochrane Colloquium 2020.
Conclusions: This study is the first to engage HCMs and PMs from multiple settings in assessing the impact of novel formats on the use of systematic review results compared to the traditional format. The results of this study will help increase the uptake of systematic review results in health care management policy making decision-making, ultimately leading to informed decision making and positively impacting the health of Canadians.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03041454
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare the impact of a novel systematic review format with the traditional systematic review format on the ability of HCMs and PMs to understand the evidence in the review and apply it to a relevant health care decision making scenario.
Methods: We conducted 2 parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with HCMs and PMs in Canada and the UK. HCMs and PMs were randomized separately to the intervention (novel format) or the control group (traditional format). The primary outcome was the proportion of HCMs or PMs who appropriately considered and applied the evidence from each systematic review format to the scenario presented.
Results: A total of 257 completed the RCTs (100 HCMs and 157 PMs). 18.6% were from Alberta, 16.0% from British Columbia, 57.6% from Ontario, 3.9% from Quebec, 0.4% from UK, and 3.5% from other provinces. Of the 157 PMs that participated in the RCT, 31.2% worked in their field for 6-10 years, 62.4% received training in research methodologies, and 41.4% were mostly familiar with systematic reviews. Of the 100 HCMs, 27.9% worked in their field for >20 years, 59.0 % received training in research methodologies, and 41.0% were mostly familiar with systematic reviews. Final results of the RCTs will be available at the Cochrane Colloquium 2020.
Conclusions: This study is the first to engage HCMs and PMs from multiple settings in assessing the impact of novel formats on the use of systematic review results compared to the traditional format. The results of this study will help increase the uptake of systematic review results in health care management policy making decision-making, ultimately leading to informed decision making and positively impacting the health of Canadians.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03041454
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: