Cargando…

The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking

BACKGROUND: Policymakers and stakeholders need immediate access to many types of research evidence to make informed decisions about the full range of questions that may arise regarding health systems. METHODS: We examined all types of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrang...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilson, Michael G, Moat, Kaelan A, Lavis, John N
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847996/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24007378
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-11-32
_version_ 1782293702697287680
author Wilson, Michael G
Moat, Kaelan A
Lavis, John N
author_facet Wilson, Michael G
Moat, Kaelan A
Lavis, John N
author_sort Wilson, Michael G
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Policymakers and stakeholders need immediate access to many types of research evidence to make informed decisions about the full range of questions that may arise regarding health systems. METHODS: We examined all types of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrangements, and implementation strategies within health systems contained in Health Systems Evidence (HSE) (http://www.healthsystemsevidence.org). The research evidence types include evidence briefs for policy, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews of effects, systematic reviews addressing other questions, systematic reviews in progress, systematic reviews being planned, economic evaluations, and health reform and health system descriptions. Specifically, we describe their distribution across health system topics and domains, trends in their production over time, availability of supplemental content in various languages, and the extent to which they focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as (for systematic reviews) their methodological quality and the availability of user-friendly summaries. RESULTS: As of July 2013, HSE contained 2,629 systematic reviews of effects (of which 501 are Cochrane reviews), 614 systematic reviews addressing other questions, 283 systematic reviews in progress, 186 systematic reviews being planned, 140 review-derived products (evidence briefs and overviews of systematic reviews), 1,669 economic evaluations, 1,092 health reform descriptions, and 209 health system descriptions. Most systematic reviews address topics related to delivery arrangements (n = 2,663) or implementation strategies (n = 1,653) with far fewer addressing financial (n = 241) or governance arrangements (n = 231). In addition, 2,928 systematic reviews have been quality appraised with moderate AMSTAR ratings found for reviews addressing governance (5.6/11), financial (5.9/11), and delivery (6.3/11) arrangements and implementation strategies (6.5/11); 1,075 systematic reviews have no independently produced user-friendly summary and only 737 systematic reviews have an LMIC focus. Literature searches for half of the systematic reviews (n = 1,584, 49%) were conducted within the last five years. CONCLUSIONS: Greater effort needs to focus on assessing whether the current distribution of systematic reviews corresponds to policymakers’ and stakeholders’ priorities, updating systematic reviews, increasing the quality of systematic reviews, and focusing on LMICs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3847996
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38479962013-12-04 The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking Wilson, Michael G Moat, Kaelan A Lavis, John N Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: Policymakers and stakeholders need immediate access to many types of research evidence to make informed decisions about the full range of questions that may arise regarding health systems. METHODS: We examined all types of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrangements, and implementation strategies within health systems contained in Health Systems Evidence (HSE) (http://www.healthsystemsevidence.org). The research evidence types include evidence briefs for policy, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews of effects, systematic reviews addressing other questions, systematic reviews in progress, systematic reviews being planned, economic evaluations, and health reform and health system descriptions. Specifically, we describe their distribution across health system topics and domains, trends in their production over time, availability of supplemental content in various languages, and the extent to which they focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as (for systematic reviews) their methodological quality and the availability of user-friendly summaries. RESULTS: As of July 2013, HSE contained 2,629 systematic reviews of effects (of which 501 are Cochrane reviews), 614 systematic reviews addressing other questions, 283 systematic reviews in progress, 186 systematic reviews being planned, 140 review-derived products (evidence briefs and overviews of systematic reviews), 1,669 economic evaluations, 1,092 health reform descriptions, and 209 health system descriptions. Most systematic reviews address topics related to delivery arrangements (n = 2,663) or implementation strategies (n = 1,653) with far fewer addressing financial (n = 241) or governance arrangements (n = 231). In addition, 2,928 systematic reviews have been quality appraised with moderate AMSTAR ratings found for reviews addressing governance (5.6/11), financial (5.9/11), and delivery (6.3/11) arrangements and implementation strategies (6.5/11); 1,075 systematic reviews have no independently produced user-friendly summary and only 737 systematic reviews have an LMIC focus. Literature searches for half of the systematic reviews (n = 1,584, 49%) were conducted within the last five years. CONCLUSIONS: Greater effort needs to focus on assessing whether the current distribution of systematic reviews corresponds to policymakers’ and stakeholders’ priorities, updating systematic reviews, increasing the quality of systematic reviews, and focusing on LMICs. BioMed Central 2013-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3847996/ /pubmed/24007378 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-11-32 Text en Copyright © 2013 Wilson 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 Research
Wilson, Michael G
Moat, Kaelan A
Lavis, John N
The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking
title The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking
title_full The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking
title_fullStr The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking
title_full_unstemmed The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking
title_short The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking
title_sort global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847996/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24007378
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-11-32
work_keys_str_mv AT wilsonmichaelg theglobalstockofresearchevidencerelevanttohealthsystemspolicymaking
AT moatkaelana theglobalstockofresearchevidencerelevanttohealthsystemspolicymaking
AT lavisjohnn theglobalstockofresearchevidencerelevanttohealthsystemspolicymaking
AT wilsonmichaelg globalstockofresearchevidencerelevanttohealthsystemspolicymaking
AT moatkaelana globalstockofresearchevidencerelevanttohealthsystemspolicymaking
AT lavisjohnn globalstockofresearchevidencerelevanttohealthsystemspolicymaking