Cargando…

Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions

OBJECTIVE: To review the barriers to the uptake of research evidence from systematic reviews by decision makers. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 19 databases covering the full range of publication years, utilised three search engines and also personally contacted investigators. Reference lists of prima...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wallace, John, Nwosu, Bosah, Clarke, Mike
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3437427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22942232
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220
_version_ 1782242783480774656
author Wallace, John
Nwosu, Bosah
Clarke, Mike
author_facet Wallace, John
Nwosu, Bosah
Clarke, Mike
author_sort Wallace, John
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To review the barriers to the uptake of research evidence from systematic reviews by decision makers. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 19 databases covering the full range of publication years, utilised three search engines and also personally contacted investigators. Reference lists of primary studies and related reviews were also consulted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they reported on the views and perceptions of decision makers on the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and the databases associated with them. All study designs, settings and decision makers were included. One investigator screened titles to identify candidate articles then two reviewers independently assessed the quality and the relevance of retrieved reports. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and then analysed. Using a pre-established taxonomy, the barriers were organised into a framework according to their effect on knowledge, attitudes or behaviour. RESULTS: Of 1726 articles initially identified, we selected 27 unique published studies describing at least one barrier to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews. These studies included a total of 25 surveys and 2 qualitative studies. Overall, the majority of participants (n=10 218) were physicians (64%). The most commonly investigated barriers were lack of use (14/25), lack of awareness (12/25), lack of access (11/25), lack of familiarity (7/25), lack of usefulness (7/25), lack of motivation (4/25) and external barriers (5/25). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reveals that strategies to improve the uptake of evidence from reviews and meta-analyses will need to overcome a wide variety of obstacles. Our review describes the reasons why knowledge users, especially physicians, do not call on systematic reviews. This study can inform future approaches to enhancing systematic review uptake and also suggests potential avenues for future investigation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3437427
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BMJ Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34374272012-09-12 Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions Wallace, John Nwosu, Bosah Clarke, Mike BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVE: To review the barriers to the uptake of research evidence from systematic reviews by decision makers. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 19 databases covering the full range of publication years, utilised three search engines and also personally contacted investigators. Reference lists of primary studies and related reviews were also consulted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they reported on the views and perceptions of decision makers on the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and the databases associated with them. All study designs, settings and decision makers were included. One investigator screened titles to identify candidate articles then two reviewers independently assessed the quality and the relevance of retrieved reports. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and then analysed. Using a pre-established taxonomy, the barriers were organised into a framework according to their effect on knowledge, attitudes or behaviour. RESULTS: Of 1726 articles initially identified, we selected 27 unique published studies describing at least one barrier to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews. These studies included a total of 25 surveys and 2 qualitative studies. Overall, the majority of participants (n=10 218) were physicians (64%). The most commonly investigated barriers were lack of use (14/25), lack of awareness (12/25), lack of access (11/25), lack of familiarity (7/25), lack of usefulness (7/25), lack of motivation (4/25) and external barriers (5/25). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reveals that strategies to improve the uptake of evidence from reviews and meta-analyses will need to overcome a wide variety of obstacles. Our review describes the reasons why knowledge users, especially physicians, do not call on systematic reviews. This study can inform future approaches to enhancing systematic review uptake and also suggests potential avenues for future investigation. BMJ Group 2012 2012-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3437427/ /pubmed/22942232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220 Text en © 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Wallace, John
Nwosu, Bosah
Clarke, Mike
Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions
title Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions
title_full Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions
title_fullStr Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions
title_full_unstemmed Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions
title_short Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions
title_sort barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3437427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22942232
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220
work_keys_str_mv AT wallacejohn barrierstotheuptakeofevidencefromsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesasystematicreviewofdecisionmakersperceptions
AT nwosubosah barrierstotheuptakeofevidencefromsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesasystematicreviewofdecisionmakersperceptions
AT clarkemike barrierstotheuptakeofevidencefromsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesasystematicreviewofdecisionmakersperceptions