Mapping initiatives for evidence synthesis, economic evaluation, and clinical guidelines development training through online courses in Brazil

Article type
Authors
1Hospital Moinhos De Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil
2Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação e do Complexo Econômico-Industrial da Saúde – SECTICS/Ministério da Saúde, Brasília/Brazil, Brasilia, Brazil
Abstract
Background: Evidence synthesis and economic evaluation provides information for decision-making that supports the advancement of an equitable health system. The lack of professionals specialized in the topic in low- and middle-income countries raises the need for educational strategies to enhance knowledge dissemination on evidence synthesis and clinical practice guidelines (CPG) development.
Objectives: To map the currently available courses of evidence synthesis, economic evaluation, and clinical practice guidelines offered in Brazil.
Methods: We performed a broad search strategy for educational courses on the main health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in Brazil and in Google by using the isolated or combination of keywords: “course”, “health technology assessment”, “clinical guidelines”, and “economic evaluation in health” in portuguese. Two independent reviewers conducted the online screening process that included online courses with a time frame of 5 years and a limit of 50 results in the search website for each combination. Protocol registration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3E7DQ.
Results: From 258 results identified, we included 34 courses. The majority of courses were launched in 2023 (47%). Regarding the subject, 55.8% courses focused on evidence synthesis and evidence to decision, 26,5% on economic evaluation, and 17.6% on CPG. The target audience varies mainly among professionals from public service (32.4%), health professionals from public service working with HTA (17.6%), health professionals from public or private service working with HTA (26.5%), people interested in HTA (17.6%). The median workload was 66 (45 - 125) hours and 52.9% courses had evaluation activities. The number of vacancies was unlimited in 44.1% courses, but 64.7% had access limited to specific audiences. The majority of courses were not paid (73.5%). The main topics approached in the courses are illustrated in Figure 1. Most of the educational initiatives were financed by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
Conclusions: The courses available in Brazil focused on evidence synthesis rather than other topics. Publicly offered courses play a crucial role, but access for specific audiences could limit knowledge dissemination. This suggests a need for diversified offerings in Institutions and fostering broader accessibility.