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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wallace, John, Byrne, Charles, Clarke, Mike
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