Cargando…
Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews provide evidence for clinical questions, however the literature suggests they are not used regularly by physicians for decision-making. A shortened systematic review format is proposed as one possible solution to address barriers, such as lack of time, experienced by b...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3691647/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23767771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-68 |
_version_ | 1782274505061695488 |
---|---|
author | Perrier, Laure Persaud, Nav Ko, Anita Kastner, Monika Grimshaw, Jeremy McKibbon, K Ann Straus, Sharon E |
author_facet | Perrier, Laure Persaud, Nav Ko, Anita Kastner, Monika Grimshaw, Jeremy McKibbon, K Ann Straus, Sharon E |
author_sort | Perrier, Laure |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews provide evidence for clinical questions, however the literature suggests they are not used regularly by physicians for decision-making. A shortened systematic review format is proposed as one possible solution to address barriers, such as lack of time, experienced by busy clinicians. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development process of two shortened formats for a systematic review intended for use by primary care physicians as an information tool for clinical decision-making. METHODS: We developed prototypes for two formats (case-based and evidence-expertise) that represent a summary of a full-length systematic review before seeking input from end-users. The process was composed of the following four phases: 1) selection of a systematic review and creation of initial prototypes that represent a shortened version of the systematic review; 2) a mapping exercise to identify obstacles described by clinicians in using clinical evidence in decision-making; 3) a heuristic evaluation (a usability inspection method); and 4) a review of the clinical content in the prototypes. RESULTS: After the initial prototypes were created (Phase 1), the mapping exercise (Phase 2) identified components that prompted modifications. Similarly, the heuristic evaluation and the clinical content review (Phase 3 and Phase 4) uncovered necessary changes. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of the processes for developing products or tools provides essential information about how they are tailored for the intended user. One step has been described that we hope will increase usability and uptake of these documents to end-users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3691647 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-36916472013-06-26 Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians Perrier, Laure Persaud, Nav Ko, Anita Kastner, Monika Grimshaw, Jeremy McKibbon, K Ann Straus, Sharon E Implement Sci Methodology BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews provide evidence for clinical questions, however the literature suggests they are not used regularly by physicians for decision-making. A shortened systematic review format is proposed as one possible solution to address barriers, such as lack of time, experienced by busy clinicians. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development process of two shortened formats for a systematic review intended for use by primary care physicians as an information tool for clinical decision-making. METHODS: We developed prototypes for two formats (case-based and evidence-expertise) that represent a summary of a full-length systematic review before seeking input from end-users. The process was composed of the following four phases: 1) selection of a systematic review and creation of initial prototypes that represent a shortened version of the systematic review; 2) a mapping exercise to identify obstacles described by clinicians in using clinical evidence in decision-making; 3) a heuristic evaluation (a usability inspection method); and 4) a review of the clinical content in the prototypes. RESULTS: After the initial prototypes were created (Phase 1), the mapping exercise (Phase 2) identified components that prompted modifications. Similarly, the heuristic evaluation and the clinical content review (Phase 3 and Phase 4) uncovered necessary changes. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of the processes for developing products or tools provides essential information about how they are tailored for the intended user. One step has been described that we hope will increase usability and uptake of these documents to end-users. BioMed Central 2013-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3691647/ /pubmed/23767771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-68 Text en Copyright © 2013 Perrier et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Perrier, Laure Persaud, Nav Ko, Anita Kastner, Monika Grimshaw, Jeremy McKibbon, K Ann Straus, Sharon E Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians |
title | Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians |
title_full | Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians |
title_fullStr | Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians |
title_full_unstemmed | Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians |
title_short | Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians |
title_sort | development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians |
topic | Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3691647/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23767771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-68 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT perrierlaure developmentoftwoshortenedsystematicreviewformatsforclinicians AT persaudnav developmentoftwoshortenedsystematicreviewformatsforclinicians AT koanita developmentoftwoshortenedsystematicreviewformatsforclinicians AT kastnermonika developmentoftwoshortenedsystematicreviewformatsforclinicians AT grimshawjeremy developmentoftwoshortenedsystematicreviewformatsforclinicians AT mckibbonkann developmentoftwoshortenedsystematicreviewformatsforclinicians AT straussharone developmentoftwoshortenedsystematicreviewformatsforclinicians |