Petkovic Jennifer, Welch Vivian, Jacob Maria Helena, Yoganathan Manosila, Ayala Ana Patricia, Cunningham Heather, Tugwell Peter
University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Bruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 43 Bruyère Street, Annex E room 302, Ottawa, ON, K1N 5C8, Canada.
Implement Sci. 2016 Dec 9;11(1):162. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0530-3.
Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers' use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers' use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products.
We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary," "policy brief," or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers' understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries.
Our database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes.
Evidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.
The protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122).
系统评价对决策者很重要。它们有许多潜在益处，但通常用专业术语撰写，篇幅过长，且缺乏背景细节，这使得它们难以用于决策。有许多组织针对不同人群或不同子集的决策者开发并传播系统评价的衍生产品，如证据总结。本系统评价旨在：（1）评估证据总结对政策制定者使用证据的有效性；（2）确定能提高政策制定者证据使用量的最有效总结要素。我们概述了关于系统评价衍生产品的现有证据。
我们纳入了各级政策制定者以及卫生系统管理者的研究。我们纳入了考察任何类型“证据总结”“政策简报”或其他源自系统评价且以总结形式呈现证据的产品的研究。主要结局为：（1）在决策中使用系统评价总结（如在政策制定和决策中自我报告的证据使用情况）；（2）政策制定者的理解、知识和/或信念（如总结中所涉主题的知识得分变化）。我们还评估了总结的感知相关性、可信度、有用性、可理解性和可取性（如格式）。
我们的数据库检索与灰色文献检索相结合，在去除重复项后得到10113条参考文献。其中，54篇进行了全文审查，我们纳入了6项研究（7篇论文报道）以及2项正在进行的研究的方案。两项研究评估了证据总结在决策中的使用情况，发现效果几乎没有差异。在知识、理解或信念方面（四项研究）以及感知有用性或可用性方面（三项研究），效果也几乎没有差异。与完整的系统评价相比，结果总结表和分级条目总结被认为稍易理解。两项研究评估了格式变化，发现对于结果总结表，某些要素，如报告研究事件发生率和绝对差异，更受青睐，同时应避免使用脚注。
证据总结可能比完整的系统评价更容易理解。然而，其在政策制定中增加系统评价证据使用量的能力尚不清楚。
该方案发表于《系统评价》杂志（2015年；4：122）。
