Article type
Abstract
Background: The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), founded in 1987, is one of the oldest health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in the world. When conducting systematic reviews, HTA reports, or evidence maps, a common result is that the research studies assessed are judged to be of high risk of bias, that research is conducted on questions not relevant to decision-makers and patients, or that they measure different outcomes, thereby limiting the possibility of making reliable conclusions.
Objectives: To promote higher-quality primary research and systematic reviews in Sweden via education, tools, and methodological support
Methods: Several initiatives have been accomplished, such as:
•Educating researchers on evidence-based research, highlighting ways to reduce research waste and increase methodological rigor.
•Educating professionals and decision-makers on how to understand the results and assess the risk of bias in a systematic review.
•Assessing methodological quality in research applications for calls made by research councils.
•Highlighting evidence gaps identified in our systematic reviews in an openly available database.
•Performing prioritization projects, involving patients and professionals, on areas with many evidence gaps.
•Highlighting the importance of core outcome sets in research.
•Making risk-of-bias tools accessible using a tree-structured web tool.
•Providing a free handbook in Swedish on how to conduct systematic reviews and HTA reports.
•Making short, openly available films on the different stages in conducting systematic reviews and HTA reports.
Results: Between 800 and 1,000 participants yearly attend our courses. The short films have been viewed by more than 8,000 people in a 2-year period. The web-based handbook, tools, and database of evidence gaps are continually visited and used. New research studies have been initiated on several of the prioritized research questions.
Conclusions: There are several ways an HTA agency may promote better research and understanding of research, such as education, methodological support, and web-based tools.
Relevance and Importance to Patients: Patients indirectly benefit from an increase in evidence-based research of high methodological quality.
Objectives: To promote higher-quality primary research and systematic reviews in Sweden via education, tools, and methodological support
Methods: Several initiatives have been accomplished, such as:
•Educating researchers on evidence-based research, highlighting ways to reduce research waste and increase methodological rigor.
•Educating professionals and decision-makers on how to understand the results and assess the risk of bias in a systematic review.
•Assessing methodological quality in research applications for calls made by research councils.
•Highlighting evidence gaps identified in our systematic reviews in an openly available database.
•Performing prioritization projects, involving patients and professionals, on areas with many evidence gaps.
•Highlighting the importance of core outcome sets in research.
•Making risk-of-bias tools accessible using a tree-structured web tool.
•Providing a free handbook in Swedish on how to conduct systematic reviews and HTA reports.
•Making short, openly available films on the different stages in conducting systematic reviews and HTA reports.
Results: Between 800 and 1,000 participants yearly attend our courses. The short films have been viewed by more than 8,000 people in a 2-year period. The web-based handbook, tools, and database of evidence gaps are continually visited and used. New research studies have been initiated on several of the prioritized research questions.
Conclusions: There are several ways an HTA agency may promote better research and understanding of research, such as education, methodological support, and web-based tools.
Relevance and Importance to Patients: Patients indirectly benefit from an increase in evidence-based research of high methodological quality.