Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance.

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/575002
Title:
Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance.
Authors:
Wallace, John; Byrne, Charles; Clarke, Mike
Citation:
Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance. 2014, 4 (10):e005834 BMJ Open
Journal:
BMJ open
Issue Date:
2014
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/575002
DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005834
PubMed ID:
25324321
Abstract:
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.; 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.; 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.; 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.; 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.; A limited number of studies were found for inclusion. However, the extensive literature search is one of the strengths of this review.; 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.
Item Type:
Article
Language:
en
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.
Keywords:
RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; EVALUATION
MeSH:
Evidence-Based Practice; Humans; Information Dissemination; Review Literature as Topic
ISSN:
2044-6055

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorWallace, Johnen
dc.contributor.authorByrne, Charlesen
dc.contributor.authorClarke, Mikeen
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-18T10:49:54Zen
dc.date.available2015-08-18T10:49:54Zen
dc.date.issued2014en
dc.identifier.citationImproving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance. 2014, 4 (10):e005834 BMJ Openen
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055en
dc.identifier.pmid25324321en
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005834en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/575002en
dc.descriptionOBJECTIVE: 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.en
dc.description.abstractLittle 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.en
dc.description.abstractStudies 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.en
dc.description.abstractWe 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.en
dc.description.abstract10 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.en
dc.description.abstractThree 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.en
dc.description.abstractA limited number of studies were found for inclusion. However, the extensive literature search is one of the strengths of this review.en
dc.description.abstractTargeted 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.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to BMJ openen
dc.subjectRESEARCHen
dc.subjectRESEARCH DESIGNen
dc.subjectEVALUATIONen
dc.subject.meshEvidence-Based Practiceen
dc.subject.meshHumansen
dc.subject.meshInformation Disseminationen
dc.subject.meshReview Literature as Topicen
dc.titleImproving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalBMJ openen

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.