Facilitating evidence uptake: development and user testing of a systematic review summary format to inform public health decision-making in German-speaking countries

Challenges of using evidence in managerial decision-making of the primary health care system

BACKGROUND

Managerial Evidence-Based Decision-Making [EBDM] in the primary is a systematic approach that directs the decision-maker in a conscientious, explicit, and judicious utilization of reliable and best evidence based on the professional experiences and preferences of stakeholders and patients from various sources. This study aimed to investigate the challenges primary healthcare managers encounter while undertaking decision-making processes.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted in 2022 with the aim of identifying and collecting all qualitative articles pertaining to evidence-based decision-making in the primary healthcare system. To achieve this, a meticulous search was conducted using the relevant keywords, including primary health care and evidence-based decision making, as well as their corresponding synonyms, across the databases Web of Science, Scopus, and Pubmed. Importantly, there were no limitations imposed on the timeframe for the search. To carefully analyze and consolidate the findings of this systematic review, the meta-synthesis approach was employed.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles were assessed in this systematic review study. The results revealed the main categories including evidence nature, EBDM barriers, utilizing evidence, decision-makers ability, organizational structure, evidence-based, EBDM support, communication for EBDM, evidence sides, EBDM skill development, public health promotion, and health system performance improvement.

CONCLUSION

The primary healthcare system is crucial in improving health outcomes and ensuring access to healthcare services for all individuals. This study explored the utilization of evidence-based EBDM within the primary healthcare system. We identified five key dimensions: causal, contextual, and intervening conditions, strategies, and consequences of EBDM as a core phenomenon. The findings will help policymakers and administrators comprehend the importance of evidence-based decision-making, ultimately leading to enhanced decision quality, community well-being, and efficiency within the healthcare system. EBDM entails considering the best reliable evidence, and incorporating community preferences while also exploiting the professional expertise and experiences of decision-makers. This systematic review has the potential to provide guidance for future reforms and enhance the quality of decision-making at the managerial level in primary healthcare.

Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences

BACKGROUND

Understanding the views of policy-makers and practitioners regarding how best to communicate research evidence is important to support research use in their decision-making.

AIM

To quantify and describe public health policy-makers and practitioners' views regarding the source, content and form of messages describing public health research findings to inform their decision-making. We also sought to examine differences in preferences between public health policy-makers and practitioners.

METHODS

A cross sectional, value-weighting survey of policy-makers and practitioners was conducted. Participants were asked to allocate a proportion of 100 points across different (i) sources of research evidence, (ii) message content and (iii) the form in which evidence is presented. Points were allocated based on their rating of influence, usefulness and preference when making decisions about health policy or practice.

RESULTS

A total of 186 survey responses were received from 90 policy-makers and 96 practitioners. Researchers and government department agencies were the most influential source of research evidence based on mean allocation of points, followed by knowledge brokers, professional peers and associations. Mean point allocation for perceived usefulness of message content was highest for simple summary of key findings and implications, and then evidence-based recommendations and data and statistical summaries. Finally, based on mean scores, policy-makers and practitioners preferred to receive research evidence in the form of peer-reviewed publications, reports, evidence briefs and plain language summaries. There were few differences in scores between policy-makers and practitioners across source, message content or form assessments or those with experience in different behavioural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings should provide a basis for the future development and optimization of dissemination strategies to this important stakeholder group.

Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Knowledge management (KM) emerged as a strategy to promote evidence-informed decision-making. This scoping review aims to map existing KM tools and mechanisms used to promote evidence-informed health decision-making in the WHO European Region and identify knowledge gaps.

METHODS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for conducting scoping reviews, we searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and Open Grey. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and conducted narrative analysis of the included studies and categorized studies according to KM type and phase.

RESULTS

Out of 9541 citations identified, we included 141 studies. The KM tools mostly assessed are evidence networks, surveillance tools, observatories, data platforms and registries, with most examining KM tools in high-income countries of the WHO European region. Findings suggest that KM tools can identify health problems, inform health planning and resource allocation, increase the use of evidence by policymakers and stimulate policy discussion.

CONCLUSION

Policymakers and funding agencies are called to support capacity-building activities, and future studies to strengthen KM in the WHO European region particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. An updated over-arching strategy to coordinate KM activities in the WHO European region will be useful in these efforts.

Dissemination of public health research evidence and guidelines to Australian Early Childhood Education and Care staff: Views about source, content and format

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Effective dissemination of public health research and evidence-based guidelines to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) staff is critical for promoting research transfer and uptake and achieving positive outcomes for children.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted during August 2021 to March 2022, with a sub-sample of Australian ECEC services participating in a larger survey completed online and via Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview. Survey items assessed: influential source for receiving research, type of content that would influence decisions to adopt research and preferred formats for receiving research.

RESULTS

Overall, 993 service managers or staff from 1984 (50.0%) invited and eligible services completed the larger survey. Of these, 463 randomly allocated services (46.7%) had staff complete the dissemination items. The Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority, ECEC agencies and Government Departments were most frequently selected as influential sources of research evidence. Staff were most interested in content providing evidence-based recommendations for future actions and descriptions of health issues addressed. Workshops or conferences and webinars were the preferred format for receiving research.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the importance of tailoring dissemination strategies to meet ECEC staff needs and engaging influential sources to disseminate research evidence. SO WHAT?: Understanding dissemination preferences of ECEC staff is crucial for supporting uptake of evidence-based health promotion in this setting. By developing tailored strategies based on ECEC preferences, research transfer and evidence-based decision making can be supported more effectively. These findings contribute to bridging the evidence-practice gap and improving the quality of care and health outcomes for children in ECEC settings.

Improving academic and public health impact of Cochrane public health reviews: what can we learn from bibliographic metrics and author dissemination strategies? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

To facilitate the development of impactful research dissemination strategies, this study aimed to: (i) survey authors of trials included in a sample of Cochrane reviews to describe strategies to disseminate trial findings, and examine their association with academic and policy impacts and (ii) audit academic and policy impact of CPH reviews.

METHODS

Authors of 104 trials within identified Cochrane reviews completed survey items assessing the dissemination strategies. Field weighted citation (FWCI) data extracted from bibliographic databases served as a measure of academic impact of trials and CPH reviews. Policy and practice impacts of trials were assessed during the survey of trial authors using items based on the Payback Framework, and for CPH reviews using 'policy mention' data collected via Altmetric Explorer.

RESULTS

Among the included trials, univariate (but not multivariable) regression models revealed significant associations between the use of dissemination strategies (i.e. posts on social media; workshops with end-users; media-releases) and policy or practice impacts. No significant associations were reported between dissemination strategies and trial FWCI. The mean FWCI of CPH reviews suggest that they are cited 220% more than other reviews in their field.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive dissemination strategies are likely required to maximize the potential the potential impacts of public health research.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population.

RESULTS

Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

Characteristics of the sources, evaluation, and grading of the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews in public health: A methodological study

Objectives

To systematically explore how the sources of evidence, types of primary studies, and tools used to assess the quality of the primary studies vary across systematic reviews (SRs) in public health.

Methods

We conducted a methodological survey of SRs in public health by searching the of literature in selected journals from electronic bibliographic databases. We selected a 10% random sample of the SRs that met the explicit inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently extracted data for analysis.

Results

We selected 301 SRs for analysis: 94 (31.2%) of these were pre-registered, and 211 (70.1%) declared to have followed published reporting standard. All SRs searched for evidence in electronic bibliographic databases, and more than half (n = 180, 60.0%) searched also the references of the included studies. The common types of primary studies included in the SRs were primarily cross-sectional studies (n = 132, 43.8%), cohort studies (n = 126, 41.9%), randomized controlled trials (RCTs, n = 89, 29.6%), quasi-experimental studies (n = 83, 27.6%), case-control studies (n = 58, 19.3%) qualitative studies (n = 38, 12.6%) and mixed-methods studies (n = 32, 10.6%). The most frequently used quality assessment tools were the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (used for 50.0% of cohort studies and 55.6% of case-control studies), Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (50.7% of RCTs) and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (38.5% of qualitative studies). Only 20 (6.6%) of the SRs assessed the certainty of the body of evidence, of which 19 (95.0%) used the GRADE approach. More than 65% of the evidence in the SRs using GRADE was of low or very low certainty.

Conclusions

SRs should always assess the quality both at the individual study level and the body of evidence for outcomes, which will benefit patients, health care practitioners, and policymakers.

Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research

Plain language summaries (PLSs) have been introduced to communicate research in an understandable way to a nonexpert audience. Guidelines for writing PLSs have been developed and empirical research on PLSs has been conducted, but terminology and research approaches in this comparatively young field vary considerably. This prompted us to review the current state of the art of the theoretical and empirical literature on PLSs. The two main objectives of this review were to develop a conceptual framework for PLS theory, and to synthesize empirical evidence on PLS criteria. We began by searching Web of Science, PubMed, PsycInfo and PSYNDEX (last search 07/2021). In our review, we included empirical investigations of PLSs, reports on PLS development, PLS guidelines, and theoretical articles referring to PLSs. A conceptual framework was developed through content analysis. Empirical studies investigating effects of PLS criteria on defined outcomes were narratively synthesized. We identified 7,714 records, of which 90 articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles were used to develop a conceptual framework for PLSs which comprises 12 categories: six of PLS aims and six of PLS characteristics. Thirty-three articles empirically investigated effects of PLSs on several outcomes, but study designs were too heterogeneous to identify definite criteria for high-quality PLSs. Few studies identified effects of various criteria on accessibility, understanding, knowledge, communication of research, and empowerment. We did not find empirical evidence to support most of the criteria we identified in the PLS writing guidelines. We conclude that although considerable work on establishing and investigating PLSs is available, empirical evidence on criteria for high-quality PLSs remains scarce. The conceptual framework developed in this review may provide a valuable starting point for future guideline developers and PLS researchers.

[Insights for healthy settings: a database to support the translation of findings from systematic reviews into practice]

The database "Insights for healthy settings" was developed by the GKV-Bündnis für Gesundheit, a joint initiative of all health insurance funds for developing and implementing setting-based health promotion and prevention measures. It aims to support health insurance funds and other practice partners in planning and implementing evidence-based health promotion and prevention measures in different settings. The database complements existing intervention databases by providing insights based on findings from systematic reviews. This article aims to present the database, describe possible applications, and discuss options for further development.The database contains findings on the effectiveness and strategies for implementation of setting-based health promotion and prevention measures. In addition to structured summaries of systematic reviews, it includes summaries of scoping reviews and rapid reviews. Different search options (e.g., free text search, subject headings, and search filters) can be used to find database entries (currently n = 13). Quality-assured database entries are created by means of a standardized form and based on the four-eyes principle. To allow for easy access, key findings are presented briefly, and technical terms are clarified. Experts from health insurance funds are continuously involved in the development process of the database.As part of the database's further development, new reviews of the GKV-Bündnis für Gesundheit as well as from other sources will be added. Additionally, quality assessments of included reviews will be depicted and supporting activities developed to further encourage translation of scientific knowledge into practice.

[Promotion of physical activity among the elderly as an example of knowledge translation: How do scientific findings enter community practice?]

BACKGROUND

Scientific findings can be an important source of knowledge for public health stakeholders involved in promoting physical activity, but several barriers hinder their use. Knowledge translation can simplify this process, but it requires the understanding of the stakeholder's needs.

OBJECTIVES

This qualitative study aims to describe how public health stakeholders access information and scientific findings, identify possible barriers, and highlight the needs of stakeholders in terms of presentation and processing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve local- and state-level stakeholders from North Rhine-Westphalia, Saxony-Anhalt, and Thuringia working in the area of physical activity promotion. The interviewees were selected through purposive sampling. The interviews were evaluated using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The benefits of scientific findings are emphasized by the interviewees, but a lack of resources in combination with a flood of information, high complexity, and technical jargon complicate their application. There is a need for tailored preparation in the form of summaries, filter functions, elaboration of practice-relevant elements, and ways of provision.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve successful knowledge translation, collaboration and interactive exchange between researchers, policymakers, and practice as well as a demand-oriented processing of scientific findings are central. Networking and bundling of knowledge on a platform are important tasks for the future.

[Establishing evidence-based prevention and health promotion: criteria for evidence-based interventions and necessary organizational requirements and capacities]

Für die Umsetzung des Präventionsgesetzes in einem sich entwickelnden System Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung (PGF) ist die Anforderung der Evidenzbasierung formuliert. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellt sich die Frage, welche Schritte, Prozesse und Vorgehensweisen in diesem System benötigt werden, um der Anforderung zunehmend gerecht zu werden. Dieser Übersichtsartikel diskutiert für Deutschland, wie evidenzbasierte Maßnahmen in der Praxis operationalisiert werden können und welche organisationalen Rahmenbedingungen und Kapazitäten für ein evidenzbasiertes Handeln von AkteurInnen notwendig sind.

Aufbauend auf internationalen wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen und dem Memorandum Evidenzbasierte Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung der Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA) wird zunächst das Verständnis von evidenzbasierten Maßnahmen erläutert und im Weiteren werden Elemente zur Umsetzung von mehr Evidenzbasierung skizziert.

Neben der transparenten und einheitlichen Darstellung in Datenbanken und Empfehlungen ist es notwendig, bei EntscheidungsträgerInnen in Praxis und Politik ein gemeinsames Verständnis von evidenzbasierten Interventionen und von Anforderungen für eine Evaluation, die Evidenzbasierung sichert, zu schaffen. Darüber hinaus kann evidenzbasiertes Handeln von EntscheidungsträgerInnen gefördert werden durch Wertschätzung gegenüber Evidenzbasierung in ihren Organisationen, durch Gewährleistung eines regelhaften Zugangs zu Evidenzdatenbanken, durch verbesserte Kompetenzen in Bezug auf Interpretation von Evidenz und durch eine systematische Zusammenarbeit mit der Wissenschaft.

Mehr Evidenzbasierung ist eine Voraussetzung für die nachhaltige Verankerung von PGF als fünfte Säule des Gesundheitssystems.

Use of the GRADE approach in health policymaking and evaluation: a scoping review of nutrition and physical activity policies

BACKGROUND

Nutrition and physical activity policies have the potential to influence lifestyle patterns and reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases. In the world of health-related guidelines, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) is the most widely used approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and determining the strength of recommendations. Thus, it is relevant to explore its usefulness also in the process of nutrition and physical activity policymaking and evaluation. The purpose of this scoping review was (i) to generate an exemplary overview of documents using the GRADE approach in the process of nutrition and physical activity policymaking and evaluation, (ii) to find out how the GRADE approach has been applied, and (iii) to explore which facilitators of and barriers to the use of GRADE have been described on the basis of the identified documents. The overarching aim of this work is to work towards improving the process of evidence-informed policymaking in the areas of dietary behavior, physical activity, and sedentary behavior.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted according to current reporting standards. MEDLINE via Ovid, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched up until 4 July 2019. Documents describing a body of evidence which was assessed for the development or evaluation of a policy, including documents labeled as "guidelines," or systematic reviews used to inform policymaking were included.

RESULTS

Thirty-six documents were included. Overall, 313 GRADE certainty of evidence ratings were identified in systematic reviews and guidelines; the strength of recommendations/policies was assessed in four documents, and six documents mentioned facilitators or barriers for the use of GRADE. The major reported barrier was the initial low starting level of a body of evidence from non-randomized studies when assessing the certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review found that the GRADE approach has been used for policy evaluations, in the evaluation of the effectiveness of policy-relevant interventions (policymaking), as well as in the development of guidelines intended to guide policymaking. Several areas for future research were identified to explore the use of GRADE in health policymaking and evaluation.