An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production. OBJECTIVE: To present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively. RESULTS: We included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 24), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated. CONCLUSION: For title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes.

The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: An umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of shared decision making (SDM) on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review and searched systematic reviews on SDM from PubMed, CINHAL, and Web of Science. We included reviews on SDM interventions used in a health care setting with patients. We assessed the eligibility of retrieved articles and evaluated whether the review addressed Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) characteristics. RESULTS: Out of 3678 records, 48 reviews were included. Half of the reviews focused exclusively on RCT studies (n = 21). A little less than half were focused specifically on decision aids (n = 23). Thirty-two reviews discussed CFIR characteristics explicitly or implicitly; the majority of which were specific to intervention characteristics. Reviews tended to cluster around patient populations and tended to be low or critically low to moderate in their quality. Reviews of SDM on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time were highly uncertain but often ranged from neutral to positive. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that SDM implementation did not typically increase costs or increase consultation time while having some neutral to positive benefits on outcomes and quality for certain populations. Gaps in knowledge remain including better research on the climate where SDM is most effective.

Perspectives on low-value care and barriers to de-implementation among primary care physicians: a multinational survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs are rising worldwide. At the same time, a considerable proportion of care does not benefit or may even be harmful to patients. We aimed to explore attitudes towards low-value care and identify the most important barriers to the de-implementation of low-value care use in primary care in high-income countries. METHODS: Between May and June 2022, we email surveyed primary care physicians in six high-income countries (Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Sweden). Physician respondents were eligible if they had worked in primary care during the previous 24 months. The survey included four sections with categorized questions on (1) background information, (2) familiarity with Choosing Wisely recommendations, (3) attitudes towards overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and (4) barriers to de-implementation, as well as a section with open-ended questions on interventions and possible facilitators for de-implementation. We used descriptive statistics to present the results. RESULTS: Of the 16,935 primary care physicians, 1,731 answered (response rate 10.2%), 1,505 had worked in primary care practice in the last 24 months and were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 53% had read Choosing Wisely recommendations. Of the respondents, 52% perceived overdiagnosis and 50% overtreatment as at least a problem to some extent in their own practice. Corresponding figures were 85% and 81% when they were asked regarding their country's healthcare. Respondents considered patient expectations (85% answered either moderate or major importance), patient's requests for treatments and tests (83%), fear of medical error (81%), workload/lack of time (81%), and fear of underdiagnosis or undertreatment (79%) as the most important barriers for de-implementation. Attitudes and perceptions of barriers differed significantly between countries. CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of primary care physicians consider overtreatment and overdiagnosis as a problem in their country's healthcare but fewer (around 50%) in their own practice. Lack of time, fear of error, and patient pressures are common barriers to de-implementation in high-income countries and should be acknowledged when planning future healthcare. Due to the wide variety of barriers to de-implementation and differences in their importance in different contexts, understanding local barriers is crucial when planning de-implementation strategies.

An Evaluation of the Impact of an OPEN Stewardship Generated Feedback Intervention on Antibiotic Prescribing among Primary Care Veterinarians in Canada and Israel.

An interrupted time-series study design was implemented to evaluate the impact of antibiotic stewardship interventions on antibiotic prescribing among veterinarians. A total of 41 veterinarians were enrolled in Canada and Israel and their prescribing data between 2019 and 2021 were obtained. As an intervention, veterinarians periodically received three feedback reports comprising feedback on the participants' antibiotic prescribing and prescribing guidelines. A change in the level and trend of antibiotic prescribing after the administration of the intervention was compared using a multi-level generalized linear mixed-effect negative-binomial model. After the receipt of the first (incidence rate ratios [IRR] = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 0.98), and second (IRR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97) feedback reports, there was a reduced prescribing rate of total antibiotic when other parameters were held constant. This decline was more pronounced among Israeli veterinarians compared to Canadian veterinarians. When other parameters were held constant, the prescribing of critical antibiotics by Canadian veterinarians decreased by a factor of 0.39 compared to that of Israeli veterinarians. Evidently, antibiotic stewardship interventions can improve antibiotic prescribing in a veterinary setting. The strategy to sustain the effect of feedback reports and the determinants of differences between the two cohorts should be further explored.

Avoidable Care Transitions: A Consensus-Based Definition Using a Delphi Technique.

Background and Objectives: Older adults are at increased risk of frequent transitions between care settings, even though some care transitions are avoidable. The term "avoidable care transitions" is not clearly defined in the research literature. This study aimed to find a consensus-based definition for "avoidable care transitions." Research Design and Methods: This study was conducted as part of the TRANS-SENIOR research network. A 4-round Delphi survey was based on a literature review that identified existing definitions of "avoidable care transitions." Articles in MEDLINE via PubMed and CINAHL were searched. In total 95 references were included, and 106 definitions were identified. Definitions were coded to find themes, resulting in 3 themes with 2 codes for each. Results: In total, 99 experts from 9 countries were invited, and the response rates in Delphi Rounds 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 37.5%, 19.1%, 33.3%, and 23.3%, respectively. Upon reaching the predefined minimum of 90% agreement, the following definition was declared as final: "Avoidable care transitions (a) are without significant patient-relevant benefits or with a risk of harm outweighing patient-relevant benefits and/or (b) are when a comparable health outcome could be achieved in lower resource settings using the resources available in that place/health care system, and/or (c) violate a patient's/informal caregiver's preference or an agreed care plan." Discussion and Implications: Consensus on a definition for "avoidable care transitions" was reached by a multidisciplinary and international panel of experts comprising researchers and providers. The resulting definition consists of 3 distinct dimensions relating to the balance of benefit and harm to a patient, resource consumption, and a patient's or informal caregiver's preferences. The new definition might enhance the common understanding of avoidable care transitions and is now ready for application in research and quality and safety management in health care.

Perceptions of shared decision making in gastroenterology and inflammatory bowel disease: A qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making (SDM) is the partnership and discussion between clinicians and patients to make an appropriate decision based on scientific evidence and patient preferences. Many benefits are associated with SDM; however, little is known about its awareness or use by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinicians in gastroenterology departments across Israel. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators in implementing SDM as standard practice to achieve optimal disease management and personalized care for patients with IBD. METHODS: Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with IBD clinicians across Israel to identify the barriers and facilitators for SDM use. An interview guide was developed, based on the systematic approach of the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF). Interview transcripts were coded into theoretical domains to identify factors that may impact SDM. RESULTS: Sixteen gastroenterologists from nine different hospitals were interviewed. Common TDF domains that presented as barriers were: knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, environmental context and resources, and reinforcement. Most participants had never heard the precise term "shared decision making" and lacked formal training on SDM. CONCLUSION: This study identified key barriers and facilitators to SDM in IBD clinics across Israel. Main barriers of SDM include limited or nonexistent training; clinicians were unaware of SDM guidelines or techniques. The main facilitators of SDM were clinicians' social and professional role and identity and their beliefs about the influence of IBD and/or CD. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These influencing factors and TDF domains identified provide a basis for developing future interventions to improve the implementation of SDM within IBD management.

Delphi survey on the most promising areas and methods to improve systematic reviews' production and updating.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are invaluable evidence syntheses, widely used in biomedicine and other scientific areas. Tremendous resources are being spent on the production and updating of SRs. There is a continuous need to automatize the process and use the workforce and resources to make it faster and more efficient. METHODS: Information gathered by previous EVBRES research was used to construct a questionnaire for round 1 which was partly quantitative, partly qualitative. Fifty five experienced SR authors were invited to participate in a Delphi study (DS) designed to identify the most promising areas and methods to improve the efficient production and updating of SRs. Topic questions focused on which areas of SRs are most time/effort/resource intensive and should be prioritized in further research. Data were analysed using NVivo 12 plus, Microsoft Excel 2013 and SPSS. Thematic analysis findings were used on the topics on which agreement was not reached in round 1 in order to prepare the questionnaire for round 2. RESULTS: Sixty percent (33/55) of the invited participants completed round 1; 44% (24/55) completed round 2. Participants reported average of 13.3 years of experience in conducting SRs (SD 6.8). More than two thirds of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed the following topics should be prioritized: extracting data, literature searching, screening abstracts, obtaining and screening full texts, updating SRs, finding previous SRs, translating non-English studies, synthesizing data, project management, writing the protocol, constructing the search strategy and critically appraising. Participants have not considered following areas as priority: snowballing, GRADE-ing, writing SR, deduplication, formulating SR question, performing meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Data extraction was prioritized by the majority of participants as an area that needs more research/methods development. Quality of available language translating tools has dramatically increased over the years (Google translate, DeepL). The promising new tool for snowballing emerged (Citation Chaser). Automation cannot substitute human judgement where complex decisions are needed (GRADE-ing). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study protocol was registered at https://osf.io/bp2hu/ .

Quality and Performance Measurement in Primary Diabetes Care: A Qualitative Study in Urban China.

BACKGROUND: Quality measurements in primary healthcare (PHC) have become an essential component for improving diabetes outcomes in many high-income countries. However, little is known about their implementation within the Chinese health-system context and how they are perceived by patients, physicians, and policy-makers. We examined stakeholders' perceptions of quality and performance measurements for primary diabetes care in Shanghai, China, and analyzed facilitators and barriers to implementation. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 26 key stakeholders were conducted from 2018 to 2019. Participants were sampled from two hospitals, four community healthcare centers (CHCs), and four institutes involved in regulating CHCs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided data analysis. RESULTS: Existing quality measurements were uniformly implemented via a top-down process, with daily monitoring of family doctors' work and pay-for-performance incentives. Barriers included excluding frontline clinicians from indicator planning, a lack of transparent reporting, and a rigid organizational culture with limited bottom-up feedback. Findings under the CFIR construct "organizational incentives" suggested that current pay-for-performance incentives function as a "double-edged sword," increasing family doctors' motivation to excel while creating pressures to "game the system" among some physicians. When considering the CFIR construct "reflecting and evaluating," policy-makers perceived the online evaluation application - which provides daily reports on family doctors' work - to be an essential tool for improving quality; however, this information was not visible to patients. Findings included under the "network and communication" construct showed that specialists support the work of family doctors by providing training and patient consultations in CHCs. CONCLUSION: The quality of healthcare could be considerably enhanced by involving patients and physicians in decisions on quality measurement. Strengthening hospital-community partnerships can improve the quality of primary care in hospital-centric systems. The case of Shanghai provides compelling policy lessons for other health systems faced with the challenge of improving PHC.

Nurse practitioner integration: Conceptual development to enhance application in policy and research.

BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners (NPs) have been introduced across the world to improve care quality and solve provider shortages. Realizing these benefits relies on their successful integration into health care systems. Although NP integration has been discussed extensively, the concept is defined inconsistently. Literature, therefore, cannot be synthesized to create policy recommendations for management and policymakers to plan for and advance NP integration. OBJECTIVES: To describe and define NP integration and enhance its applicability in research and policy. DATA SOURCES: A modified Walker and Avant concept analysis was used to develop a conceptual model of NP integration. Data were extracted and synthesized from 78 sources referencing the concept. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioner integration was operationally defined as the multilevel process of incorporating NPs into the health care system so that NPs can practice to their full scope, education, and training and contribute to patient, system, and population needs. The attributes of NP integration are: 1) achievable goal; 2) process; 3) introduction of the role; 4) incorporation into organizational care models; 5) challenging traditional ideologies; 6) ability to function; 7) provide high-quality care; and 8) improve outcomes, sustainability, and health system transformation. Seventeen facilitators/barriers affecting NP integration were identified. Three health care system levels at which integration occurs were identified- macro , meso , and micro . IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings will inform managers, policymakers, and stakeholders about NP integration to aid in planning and policy development. Results can be used to inform research on barriers and facilitators to NP integration.

Recommendations for the Design and Delivery of Transitions-Focused Digital Health Interventions: Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Older adults experience a high risk of adverse events during hospital-to-home transitions. Implementation barriers have prevented widespread clinical uptake of the various digital health technologies that aim to support hospital-to-home transitions. OBJECTIVE: To guide the development of a digital health intervention to support transitions from hospital to home (the Digital Bridge intervention), the specific objectives of this review were to describe the various roles and functions of health care providers supporting hospital-to-home transitions for older adults, allowing future technologies to be more targeted to support their work; describe the types of digital health interventions used to facilitate the transition from hospital to home for older adults and elucidate how these interventions support the roles and functions of providers; describe the lessons learned from the design and implementation of these interventions; and identify opportunities to improve the fit between technology and provider functions within the Digital Bridge intervention and other transition-focused digital health interventions. METHODS: This 2-phase rapid review involved a selective review of providers' roles and their functions during hospital-to-home transitions (phase 1) and a structured literature review on digital health interventions used to support older adults' hospital-to-home transitions (phase 2). During the analysis, the technology functions identified in phase 2 were linked to the provider roles and functions identified in phase 1. RESULTS: In phase 1, various provider roles were identified that facilitated hospital-to-home transitions, including navigation-specific roles and the roles of nurses and physicians. The key transition functions performed by providers were related to the 3 categories of continuity of care (ie, informational, management, and relational continuity). Phase 2, included articles (n=142) that reported digital health interventions targeting various medical conditions or groups. Most digital health interventions supported management continuity (eg, follow-up, assessment, and monitoring of patients' status after hospital discharge), whereas informational and relational continuity were the least supported. The lessons learned from the interventions were categorized into technology- and research-related challenges and opportunities and informed several recommendations to guide the design of transition-focused digital health interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need for Digital Bridge and other digital health interventions to align the design and delivery of digital health interventions with provider functions, design and test interventions with older adults, and examine multilevel outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045596.

Barriers and facilitators of implementing interventions to improve appropriate antibiotic use in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: Behavior change interventions that aim to improve rational antibiotic use in prescribers and users have been widely conducted in both high- and LMICs. However, currently, no review has systematically examined challenges unique to LMICs and offered insights into the underlying contextual factors that influence these interventions. We adopted an implementation research perspective to systematically synthesize the implementation barriers and facilitators in LMICs. METHODS: We conducted literature searches in five electronic databases and identified studies that involved the implementation of behavior change interventions to improve appropriate antibiotic use in prescribers and users in LMICs and reported implementation barriers and facilitators. Behavior change interventions were defined using the behavior change wheel, and the coding and synthesis of barriers and facilitators were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: We identified 52 eligible studies, with the majority targeting prescribers practicing at tertiary facilities (N=39, 75%). The most commonly reported factors influencing implementation were found in the inner setting domain of the CFIR framework, particularly related to constraints in resources and the infrastructure of the facilities where interventions were implemented. Barriers related to the external policy environment (e.g., lack of national initiatives and policies on antibiotic use), and individual characteristics of target populations (e.g., reluctance to change prescribing behaviors) were also common, as well as facilitators related to intervention characteristics (e.g., embedding interventions in routine practice) and process (e.g., stakeholder engagement). We also provided insights into the interrelationships between these factors and the underlying causes contributing to the implementation challenges in LMICs. CONCLUSION: We presented a comprehensive overview of the barriers and facilitators of implementing behavior change interventions to promote rational antibiotic use in LMICs. Our findings suggest that facilitating the implementation of interventions to improve rational antibiotic use needs comprehensive efforts to address challenges at policy, organizational, and implementation levels. Specific strategies include (1) strengthening political commitment to prompt mobilization of domestic resources and formulation of a sustainable national strategy on AMR, (2) improving the infrastructure of health facilities that allow prescribers to make evidence-based clinical decisions, and (3) engaging local stakeholders to improve their buy-in and facilitate contextualizing interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021252715 .

Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: Are We Doing Enough? Comment on "Examining and Contextualizing Approaches to Establish Policy Support Organizations - A Mixed Method Study".

In their study of manifestations of policy support organizations (PSOs), Al Sabahi et al found that PSOs are united in their goal to support evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM), albeit with differing approaches. Their article is an important contribution to the body of research on evidence utilization and implementation. The unprecedented evidence climate presented by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provides a unique window to motivate EIPM implementation. Research such as Al Sabahi and colleagues must prompt a dialogue regarding how best to address some of the current shortcomings in the field of EIPM. Monitoring and evaluation of best practices in EIPM is scarce. EIPM uptake is unsatisfactory, and the scientific community needs to ask itself why that is and what can be done. And, we should strive to develop a gradient that discerns between the convenient and the essential so countries can evaluate and pursue the policies to best address their greatest pain points through evidence.

Desirable attributes of theories, models, and frameworks for implementation strategy design in healthcare: a scoping review protocol.

Background: Implementation strategies can facilitate the adoption of evidence-based practices and policies. A wide range of theoretical approaches-theories, models, and frameworks-can be used to inform implementation strategy design in different ways (e.g., guiding barrier and enabler assessment to implementing evidence-based interventions). While selection criteria and attributes of theoretical approaches for use in implementation strategy design have been studied, they have never been synthesized. Furthermore, theoretical approaches have never been classified according to desirable criteria and attributes for use in implementation strategy design. This scoping review aims to a) identify the literature reporting on the selection of theoretical approaches for informing implementation strategy design in healthcare and b) understand the suggested use of these approaches in implementation strategy design. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidelines will be used to conduct this scoping review. A search of three bibliographical databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL) will be conducted for peer-reviewed discussion, methods, protocol, or review papers. Data will be managed using the Covidence software. Two review team members will independently perform screening, full text review and data extraction. Results: Results will include a list of selection criteria and attributes of theoretical approaches for use in research on implementation strategy design. Descriptive data regarding selection criteria and attributes will be synthesized graphically and in table format. Data regarding the suggested use of theoretical approaches in implementation strategy design will be presented narratively. Conclusions: Results will be used to classify existing theoretical approaches according to the attributes and selection criteria identified in this scoping review. Envisioned next steps include an online tool that will be created to assist researchers in selecting theories, models, and frameworks for implementation strategy design.

Too Much Cancer Care?: Nurses' Perspectives on the Unnecessary Use of Oncology Services.

BACKGROUND: "Unnecessary use of health services" refers to care that does not add value for patients and can lead to physical, emotional, and economical harm. High rates of overuse have been reported within oncology, and patients experience its consequences. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore perceptions and experiences of oncology nurses regarding unnecessary use of oncology services. METHODS: In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 20 oncology nurses currently practicing in Israel. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Themes included perceptions of unnecessary use of health services in cancer (causes and effects of unnecessary use, current and proposed solutions) and negative effects of unnecessary cancer care on patients, families, providers, and the system, including decreased quality of life, increased suffering, and emotional effects on patients and families. Causes were seen on provider, family, and patient levels, such as difficulty for providers to "give up," lack of registered nurses' authority, and family and patient demands. Multidisciplinary care provision, nurses' role, and the patient-provider relationship were seen as existing facilitators minimizing unnecessary use. Future improvement can be achieved by strengthening relationships, providing support to healthcare providers, and improving communication. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses perceive unnecessary use of health services as a result of multiple, interlinked and complex causes, but few targeted interventions exist. Future research should explore quantifying unnecessary use to determine an accurate representation of the issue. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Solutions should include engaging patients and families, involving nurses, and fostering multidisciplinary collaborative teamwork to positively affect care and treatment decision-making processes.

Exploring community healthcare providers' perceptions on antimicrobial resistance.

OBJECTIVES: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a threat to global health, making previously curable diseases disabling or incurable. Human misuse of antimicrobials exacerbates the issue. As stewards to the public and prescribers of antimicrobials, healthcare providers are vital to reducing AMR, thus their perceptions and experiences around the issue must be explored. This study aimed to understand the perceptions of community nurses and physicians regarding the causes of AMR as well as barriers and facilitators to addressing it. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand the perceptions of nurses and physicians on these issues. RESULTS: Overall, participants expressed that both environmental and human causes at various levels contribute to AMR. Whilst most themes were discussed by both healthcare practitioner groups, nurses more frequently mentioned patient causes and patient education compared with physicians. Participants also reflected on facilitators to reduce AMR, including guidelines, patient and provider education, and top-down and bottom-up initiatives. Identified barriers included patient demands, physician pressures and fears, and systemic overworking of physicians. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated numerous factors underpinning AMR and many barriers to addressing it, hence a multifaceted approach is required. This work also offers insight on how different groups can be utilised or will react to interventions.

How is the use of research evidence in health policy perceived? A comparison between the reporting of researchers and policy-makers.

BACKGROUND: The use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to inform health policy-making is an international challenge. Incorporating HPSR into decision-making primarily involves two groups, namely researchers (knowledge producers) and policy-makers (knowledge users). The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of Israeli health systems and policy researchers and health services policy-makers regarding the role of HPSR, factors influencing its uses and potential facilitators and barriers to HPSR, and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) activities. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and policy-makers in Israel. The survey consisted of seven closed questions. Descriptive analyses were carried out for closed-ended questions and comparative analysis were conducted between groups using the χ2 test. RESULTS: A total of 37 researchers and 32 policy-makers responded to the survey. While some views were in alignment, others showed differences. More policy-makers than researchers perceived that the use of HPSR in policy was hindered by practical implementation constraints, whereas more researchers felt that its use was hindered by a lack of coordination between knowledge producers and users. A larger percentage of policy-makers, as compared to researchers, reported that facilitators to the KTE process are in place and a larger percentage of researchers perceived barriers within the KTE environment. A larger percentage of policy-makers perceived KTE activities were in place as compared to researchers. Results also showed large differences in the perceptions of the two groups regarding policy formulation and which organisations they perceived as exerting strong influence on policy-making. CONCLUSIONS: This research demonstrated that there are differences in the perceptions of knowledge producers and users about the process of KTE. Future work should focus on minimising the challenges highlighted here and implementing new KTE activities. These activities could include making the researchers aware of the most effective manner in which to package their results, providing training to policy-makers and assuring that policy-makers have technical access to appropriate databases to search for HPSR. These results underscore the need for the groups to communicate and clarify to each other what they can offer and what they require.

Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are infrequently used by health care managers (HCMs) and policy-makers (PMs) in decision-making. HCMs and PMs co-developed and tested novel systematic review of effects formats to increase their use. METHODS: A three-phased approach was used to evaluate the determinants to uptake of systematic reviews of effects and the usability of an innovative and a traditional systematic review of effects format. In phase 1, survey and interviews were conducted with HCMs and PMs in four Canadian provinces to determine perceptions of a traditional systematic review format. In phase 2, systematic review format prototypes were created by HCMs and PMs via Conceptboard©. In phase 3, prototypes underwent usability testing by HCMs and PMs. RESULTS: Two hundred two participants (80 HCMs, 122 PMs) completed the phase 1 survey. Respondents reported that inadequate format (Mdn = 4; IQR = 4; range = 1-7) and content (Mdn = 4; IQR = 3; range = 1-7) influenced their use of systematic reviews. Most respondents (76%; n = 136/180) reported they would be more likely to use systematic reviews if the format was modified. Findings from 11 interviews (5 HCMs, 6 PMs) revealed that participants preferred systematic reviews of effects that were easy to access and read and provided more information on intervention effectiveness and less information on review methodology. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 55.7 (standard deviation [SD] 17.2) for the traditional format; a SUS score < 68 is below average usability. In phase 2, 14 HCMs and 20 PMs co-created prototypes, one for HCMs and one for PMs. HCMs preferred a traditional information order (i.e., methods, study flow diagram, forest plots) whereas PMs preferred an alternative order (i.e., background and key messages on one page; methods and limitations on another). In phase 3, the prototypes underwent usability testing with 5 HCMs and 7 PMs, 11 out of 12 participants co-created the prototypes (mean SUS score 86 [SD 9.3]). CONCLUSIONS: HCMs and PMs co-created prototypes for systematic review of effects formats based on their needs. The prototypes will be compared to a traditional format in a randomized trial.