Uptake of Systematic Review Evidence
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this project is to identify and use our knowledge on the barriers and facilitators to using systematic reviews (SR) by health care managers (HCM) and policy markers (PM) to develop and test a novel format for presentation of SR for HCM and PM. We will invite HCM and PM from hospitals and regional authorities in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia to participate in a randomized-control trial. Participants will receive a link to an online consent survey, and then be randomly allocated to receive access to a novel SR or its traditional presentation. There is no time limit to completing the task, and participants are able to save their responses and finish later. Participants are able to withdraw from the study by not completing the task.
Detailed description
Despite advances in the conduct and reporting of traditional systematic reviews, current evidence suggests that they are used infrequently by health care managers and policy makers in decision making. Managers and policy makers have suggested that concise presentation positively affects the use of systematic reviews. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to assess the impact of a traditional systematic review format compared with the innovative format on the ability of health care managers and policy makers to understand the evidence in the review and apply it to a relevant health care decision making scenario. The two end-user groups have different formatting needs and we will therefore run 2 parallel studies, randomizing each group separately. Once participants have consented to participate, a computer generated randomization process will allocate them to one of 2 arms (1:1 ratio). Participants will either receive either a traditional format or a novel format. Unequal block randomization will be used and allocation will be concealed through central assignment. Outcomes assessors will be blinded and participants will be blinded to the citation of the review so that the traditional version will not be easily accessible in its original format from the relevant journal. This study will be the first study to engage health care managers and policy makers in the testing of formats for presentation of research evidence relevant to their needs. The results of the project will help increase the uptake of systematic review results in health care management policy decision-making, ultimately leading to informed decision making and positively impacting the health of Canadians.
Interventions
OTHERNovel systematic review format
A 2-page summary of systematic review content that has been designed in collaboration with policy makers and health care managers.
Sponsors
Unity Health Toronto
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Health care managers from the Alberta SCNs, CAHO in Ontario, the RHAs and AQESSS in Quebec and RHAs from BC will be invited to participate. * Policy makers/analysts from the Ontario, BC, Alberta and Quebec Ministries of Health
Exclusion criteria
* Health care managers or policy makers who are unwilling or unable to give informed consent.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Proportion of participants (health care managers or policy makers) who appropriately consider and apply the evidence from each systematic review format | This measure will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours). | The proportion of participants (health care managers or policy makers) who appropriately consider and apply the evidence from each systematic review format to the scenario as measured by agreement with an expert panel's recommendation. A panel of 4 health care managers or policy makers from our research team and 2 content experts. Their answers will provide the definition of appropriate application of the evidence. Two investigators who will be blind to allocation will independently determine if the participant's answer agrees with that from the expert panel. Disagreements will be resolved by a third investigator, independently. Agreement between investigators will be reported using the kappa statistic. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Comprehension of the review | This measures will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours). | Comprehension of the review - defined as the proportion of participants (health care managers or policy makers) who accurately define the bottom line from the systematic review as defined by an expert panel. A panel of 4 health care managers or policy makers from our research team and 2 content experts. Their answers will provide the definition of the bottom line from the systematic review. Two investigators who will be blind to allocation will independently determine if the participant's answer agrees with that from the expert panel. Disagreements will be resolved by a third investigator, independently. Agreement between investigators will be reported using the kappa statistic. |
| Intention to use evidence | This measures will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours). | Intention to use evidence - collected through a 12-item likert scale survey. The survey has good face validity amongst policy makers and managers. The mean and SD of each item in the survey will be reported and we will provide a summary score of all items and convert it to a percentage. |
| Perceived tentativeness of research findings | This measures will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours). | Perceived tentativeness of research findings - collected through a 6-item likert scale survey. This has been pre-tested to make sure that the items are intelligible to people and to achieve high levels of face validity and reliability. The mean and SD of each item in the survey will be reported and we will provide a summary score of all items and convert it to a percentage. |
| Provisional opinion about the intervention | This measures will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours). | Provisional opinion about the intervention - collected through a 14-item likert scale survey. This has been pre-tested to make sure that the items are intelligible to people and to achieve high levels of face validity and reliability. The mean and SD of each item in the survey will be reported and we will provide a summary score of all items and convert it to a percentage. |
Countries
Canada
Outcome results
None listed