Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review

The focus of this study was to review and evaluate the effectiveness of gamification within e-learning platforms. The study deployed systematic literature review methodology to evaluate how effective gamification has been used within e-learning platforms. The study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Approach (PRISMA), starting with 366 articles, shifting to a final 34 articles for consideration. It was established that gamification positively influences and enhances learning within the e-learning platform. Therefore, the study recommends policy makers, designers, and implementers of e-learning platforms to consider incorporating gamification elements in order to increase user motivation and engagement for enhanced learning.

Download Full-text

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review

Implementation Science ◽

10.1186/s13012-016-0530-3 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Jennifer Petkovic ◽

Vivian Welch ◽

Maria Helena Jacob ◽

Manosila Yoganathan ◽

Ana Patricia Ayala ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health System ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Summaries

Download Full-text

Australian health policy makers’ priorities for research synthesis: a survey

Australian Health Review ◽

10.1071/ah11064 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 36 (4) ◽

pp. 401 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Miranda S. Cumpston ◽

Emma J. Tavender ◽

Heather A. Buchan ◽

Russell L. Gruen

Keyword(s):

Health Policy ◽

Professional Practice ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Organisation Of Care ◽

Australian Health ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Regulatory Interventions ◽

Territory Government ◽

Cochrane Effective Practice

Objectives. Health policy making is complex, but can be informed by evidence of what works, including systematic reviews. We aimed to inform the work of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group by identifying systematic review topics relevant to Australian health policy makers and exploring whether existing Cochrane reviews address these topics. Methods. We interviewed 30 senior policy makers from State and Territory Government Departments of Health to identify topics considered important for systematic reviews within the scope of health services research, including professional, financial, organisational and regulatory interventions to improve professional practice and the organisation of services. We then looked for existing Cochrane reviews relevant to these topics. Results. Eighty-five priority topics were identified by policy makers, including advanced practice roles, care for Indigenous Australians, care for chronic disease, coordinating across jurisdictions, admission avoidance, and eHealth. Sixty published Cochrane reviews address these issues, and 34 additional reviews are in progress. Thirty-four topics are yet to be addressed. Conclusions. This survey has identified questions for which Australian policy makers have indicated a need for systematic reviews. Further, it has confirmed that existing reviews do address issues of importance to policy makers, with the potential to inform policy processes. What is known about the topic? Evidence-informed policy making is a complex process, requiring integration of relevant evidence in the context of multiple influences, inputs and priorities. Communication between policy makers and researchers is likely to increase the availability of relevant research evidence for policy, and improve its uptake into action. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group produces systematic reviews in areas intersecting with key policy responsibilities, including professional, financial, organisational and regulatory interventions designed to improve health professional practice and the organisation of healthcare services, and seeks to engage with policy makers to identify their research priorities. What does this paper add? This study surveyed Australian health policy makers from each of the Australian State and Territory Government Departments of Health, and identified 85 policy questions for which they considered systematic reviews of the evidence would be useful. Relevant to these topics, 60 existing published Cochrane systematic reviews were identified, as well as 34 reviews in progress, and 34 topics not yet addressed. The study also identified those published reviews that could not reach definitive conclusions, indicating that more primary research is required. What are the implications for practitioners? For researchers, areas of need for new systematic reviews have been identified. For policy makers, a suite of relevant systematic reviews have been identified that may be of use in policy processes.

Download Full-text

Reflection about systematic review in public health

Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem ◽

10.1590/0104-07072014002110012 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 23 (2) ◽

pp. 479-483

Author(s):

Fabiana Villela Mamede

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Health Program ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Public Health Program ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Reporting Requirements ◽

Study Designs ◽

Health Review

This study is a reflection on conducting a systematic review in public health. Systematic reviews of public health are fraught with challenges. Complexity is inherent and this may be due to multi-component interventions, diverse study populations, multiple outcomes measured, mixed study designs, or implementation and effectiveness of the review. For policy makers and practitioners to use systematic reviews to implement effective systematic reviews of public health program, the reviews must include this information, which seeks to answer the questions posed by decision-makers, including recipients of the program. We discuss methodological and practice issues that need to be considered when undertaking systematic reviews in this field, including recommendations to reviewers on the issues to address within a systematic public health review and, indirectly, provides advice to researchers on the reporting requirements of primary studies for the production of high quality systematic reviews.

Download Full-text

Opportunistic evidence: evidence-based policy in the setting of the Australian Government's chlamydia screening pilot

Australian Health Review ◽

10.1071/ah10942 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 36 (1) ◽

pp. 57

Author(s):

Simon R. Crouch

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Policy ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Policy Development ◽

Good Health ◽

Chlamydia Screening ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Policy Decisions ◽

Evidence Based Policy

Objective. Chlamydia prevention and control form a significant part of the Australian Government’s sexual health policy. This paper examines the evidence for policy development and in particular the role of systematic reviews in evidence-based policy. Methods. The author undertook a review of the literature on evidence-based policy. The major theories for evidence-based policy were then linked to the Australian Government’s main chlamydia policy. Results. A systematic review on chlamydia screening has been influential in policy development, but like all systematic reviews its validity must be assessed. It has been suggested that methodological appropriateness and the question being asked are perhaps more important than study design per se. Partnerships between researchers and policymakers are important but it should be noted that experts have their own particular biases. Policymaking can also be determined by political ideologies. Conclusions and implications. The publication of a systematic review has provided a good summative evaluation of chlamydia screening that has been built upon through partnerships with researchers. The resulting chlamydia screening pilot will provide further evidence for future policy; however, a variety of sources are required to develop robust policy directions. What is known about the topic? Systematic reviews are often considered to be the best evidence on which to base policy decisions. In practice it is not always the case that best evidence is used to form policy. As well as systematic reviews, which are not always infallible, there are many other factors that affect the development of national health policy. What does the paper add? This paper provides a consideration of the role of systematic reviews in policy-making, as well as some of the pitfalls to this approach. As an example, it provides the Australian Government’s policy on chlamydia control and looks at other factors that may have contributed to the development of this policy. What are the implications for practitioners? All practitioners involved in policy decisions should consider the evidence-base from which their policies are derived. They should understand the sound basis of the systematic review while accepting that other pressures may affect the processes leading up to the formation of good health policy.

Download Full-text

Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions: An Essential Component of Health Sciences Graduate Programs

International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship ◽

10.2202/1548-923x.1042 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Shelley Peacock ◽

Dorothy Forbes

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Graduate Programs ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Research Question ◽

Opportunity To Learn ◽

Health Science ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Unpublished Studies ◽

Unpublished Research

Systematic reviews are an objective, rigorous assessment of both published and unpublished research that enable the reviewer to make recommendations to clinicians, policy-makers, consumers, and researchers. The steps in a systematic review include: (a) developing a research question, (b) developing relevance and validity tools, (c) conducting a thorough literature search of published and unpublished studies, (d) using relevance and validity tools to assess the studies, (e) completing data extraction for each study, (f) synthesizing the findings and, (g) writing the report. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the value of providing health science graduate students with the opportunity to learn about the conduct of a systematic review. An example of a thesis utilizing the method of a systematic review is presented.

Download Full-text

Szisztematikus irodalmi áttekintések módszertana és jelentősége. Segítség a diagnosztikus és terápiás döntésekhez

Orvosi Hetilap ◽

10.1556/650.2015.30255 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 156 (38) ◽

pp. 1523-1531

Author(s):

Viktória Kamarási ◽

Gábor Mogyorósy

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Policy ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Question ◽

Professional Literature ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Scientific Methods ◽

Therapeutic Decisions ◽

Specific Research Question ◽

Made In

There is no proven effective treatment for many diseases today that proves to be one of the greatest problems of health care. Therefore, different therapeutic decisions are made in connection with the same disease by hospitals. There is a growing need for reviews which summarize the information collected from professional literature with scientific methods. The aim of the authors was to show the limitations of conventional narrative reviews, and to present the method and importance of systematic reviews to Hungarian professionals. Systematic reviews are transparent studies which are based on a predetermined protocol and collate all empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, and consequently provide more reliable results. They use explicit and systematic methods to minimize bias, and provide evidence for clinicians and policy makers to help them make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions which are essential in several fields of the health care system and health policy, too. Orv. Hetil., 2015, 156(38), 1523–1531.

Download Full-text