Document Detail

Making evidence more wanted: a systematic review of facilitators to enhance the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23173658     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Context  The increased uptake of evidence from systematic reviews is advocated because of their potential to improve the quality of decision making for patient care. Systematic reviews can do this by decreasing inappropriate clinical variation and quickly expediting the application of current, effective advances to everyday practice. However, research suggests that evidence from systematic reviews has not been widely adopted by health professionals. Little is known about the facilitators to uptake of research evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Objective  To review the facilitators to the uptake by decision makers, of evidence from systematic, meta-analyses and the databases containing them. Search strategy  We searched 19 databases covering the full range of publication years, utilised three search engines and also personally contacted investigators. Grey literature and knowledge translation research was particularly sought. Reference lists of primary studies and related reviews were also searched. Selection criteria  Studies were included if they reported on the views and perceptions of decision makers on the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and the databases associated with them. One investigator screened titles to identify candidate articles, and then two reviewers independently assessed the relevance of retrieved articles to exclude studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Quality of the included studies was also assessed. Data extraction  Using a pre-established taxonomy, two reviewers described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and then analysed. Differences were resolved by consensus. Results  Of articles initially identified, we selected unique published studies describing at least one facilitator to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews. The 15 unique studies reported 10 surveys, three qualitative investigations and two mixed studies that addressed potential facilitators. Five studies were from Canada, four from the UK, three from Australia, one from Iran and one from South-east Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines), with one study covering both Canada and UK. In total, the 15 studies covered eight countries from four continents. Of 2495 participants in the 15 studies, at least 1343 (53.8%) were physicians. Perceived facilitators to the use of evidence from systematic reviews varied. The 15 studies yielded 54 potential facilitators to systematic review uptake. The five most commonly reported perceived facilitators to uptake of evidence from systematic reviews were the following: the perception that systematic reviews have multiple uses for improving knowledge, research, clinical protocols and evidence-based medicine skills (6/15); a content that included benefits, harms and costs and is current, transparent and timely (6/15); a format with a 1:3:25 staged access and executive summary (5/15); training in use (4/15); and peer-group support (4/15). Conclusion  The results expand our understanding of how multiple factors act as facilitators to optimal clinical practice. This systematic review reveals that interventions to foster uptake of evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and The Cochrane Library can build on a broad range of facilitators.
John Wallace; Charles Byrne; Mike Clarke
Related Documents :
15649198 - Reiter syndrome accompanied by terry nail.
4083448 - Anaesthesia for carotid body tumour resection in a patient with the eisenmenger syndrom...
23983788 - A systematic review of experimental and clinical acupuncture in chemotherapy-induced pe...
10642108 - Rhombencephalosynapsis diagnosed in childhood: clinical and mri findings.
19322728 - Self-report of drinking compared to objective markers of alcohol consumption.
16594738 - Papanicolaou tests with mixed high-grade and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion ...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  International journal of evidence-based healthcare     Volume:  10     ISSN:  1744-1609     ISO Abbreviation:  Int J Evid Based Healthc     Publication Date:  2012 Dec 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-11-23     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101247063     Medline TA:  Int J Evid Based Healthc     Country:  Australia    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  338-46     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
© 2012 The Authors. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare © 2012 The Joanna Briggs Institute.
DPhil International Programme in Evidence-Based Health Care, Oxford University, Oxford, UK Department of Psychiatry, Roscommon County Hospital, Roscommon MRC all-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Queen's University, Belfast, Ireland.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Models of care in nursing: a systematic review.
Next Document:  Current evidence on evidence-based practice training in allied health: a systematic review of the li...