Cargando…
Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the barriers, facilitators and interventions that impact on systematic review uptake. The objective of this study was to identify how uptake of systematic reviews can be improved. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they addressed interventions enhancing the...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4202007/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25324321 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005834 |
_version_ | 1782340249944326144 |
---|---|
author | Wallace, John Byrne, Charles Clarke, Mike |
author_facet | Wallace, John Byrne, Charles Clarke, Mike |
author_sort | Wallace, John |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the barriers, facilitators and interventions that impact on systematic review uptake. The objective of this study was to identify how uptake of systematic reviews can be improved. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they addressed interventions enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews. Reports in any language were included. All decisionmakers were eligible. Studies could be randomised trials, cluster-randomised trials, controlled-clinical trials and before-and-after studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched 19 databases including PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, covering the full range of publication years from inception to December 2010. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria. RESULTS: 10 studies from 11 countries, containing 12 interventions met our criteria. Settings included a hospital, a government department and a medical school. Doctors, nurses, mid-wives, patients and programme managers were targeted. Six of the studies were geared to improving knowledge and attitudes while four targeted clinical practice. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Three studies of low-to-moderate risk of bias, identified interventions that showed a statistically significant improvement: educational visits, short summaries of systematic reviews and targeted messaging. Promising interventions include e-learning, computer-based learning, inactive workshops, use of knowledge brokers and an e-registry of reviews. Juxtaposing barriers and facilitators alongside the identified interventions, it was clear that the three effective approaches addressed a wide range of barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: A limited number of studies were found for inclusion. However, the extensive literature search is one of the strengths of this review. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted messaging, educational visits and summaries are recommended to enhance systematic review uptake. Identified promising approaches need to be developed further. New strategies are required to encompass neglected barriers and facilitators. This review addressed effectiveness and also appropriateness of knowledge uptake strategies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4202007 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42020072014-10-21 Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance Wallace, John Byrne, Charles Clarke, Mike BMJ Open Medical Education and Training OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the barriers, facilitators and interventions that impact on systematic review uptake. The objective of this study was to identify how uptake of systematic reviews can be improved. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they addressed interventions enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews. Reports in any language were included. All decisionmakers were eligible. Studies could be randomised trials, cluster-randomised trials, controlled-clinical trials and before-and-after studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched 19 databases including PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, covering the full range of publication years from inception to December 2010. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria. RESULTS: 10 studies from 11 countries, containing 12 interventions met our criteria. Settings included a hospital, a government department and a medical school. Doctors, nurses, mid-wives, patients and programme managers were targeted. Six of the studies were geared to improving knowledge and attitudes while four targeted clinical practice. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Three studies of low-to-moderate risk of bias, identified interventions that showed a statistically significant improvement: educational visits, short summaries of systematic reviews and targeted messaging. Promising interventions include e-learning, computer-based learning, inactive workshops, use of knowledge brokers and an e-registry of reviews. Juxtaposing barriers and facilitators alongside the identified interventions, it was clear that the three effective approaches addressed a wide range of barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: A limited number of studies were found for inclusion. However, the extensive literature search is one of the strengths of this review. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted messaging, educational visits and summaries are recommended to enhance systematic review uptake. Identified promising approaches need to be developed further. New strategies are required to encompass neglected barriers and facilitators. This review addressed effectiveness and also appropriateness of knowledge uptake strategies. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4202007/ /pubmed/25324321 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005834 Text en 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 in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Medical Education and Training Wallace, John Byrne, Charles Clarke, Mike Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance |
title | Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance |
title_full | Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance |
title_fullStr | Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance |
title_full_unstemmed | Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance |
title_short | Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance |
title_sort | improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance |
topic | Medical Education and Training |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4202007/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25324321 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005834 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wallacejohn improvingtheuptakeofsystematicreviewsasystematicreviewofinterventioneffectivenessandrelevance AT byrnecharles improvingtheuptakeofsystematicreviewsasystematicreviewofinterventioneffectivenessandrelevance AT clarkemike improvingtheuptakeofsystematicreviewsasystematicreviewofinterventioneffectivenessandrelevance |