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

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 401 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Cochrane i Norge - Hvordan formidler vi resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter?

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Glenton ◽  
Sarah Rosenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Structure ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
English Summary ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Other Information ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

<p>Cochrane-systematiske oversikter oppleves ofte som lite tilgjengelige. En av hovedaktivitetene til det norske Cochrane-miljøet er å utvikle måter å presentere resultatene fra Cochrane-oversikter på for at de lettere tas i bruk. Vi beskriver her fire hovedprinsipper for dette arbeidet, og gir eksempler på dokumentformater vi har vært med på å utvikle. De overordnete prinsippene er: 1) Informasjonen bør være forståelig for personer uten ekspertkunnskap om forskningsmetodikk. Vi har erfart at når det gjelder forståelsen av resultater fra systematiske oversikter går det største skillet mellom forskere og ikke-forskere og i mindre grad mellom ulike grupper som helsepersonell, pasienter og byråkrater. 2) Informasjonen bør presenteres på en mest mulig nøytral måte. 3) Informasjonen bør være brukertilpasset. Det innebærer at vi innhenter tilbakemeldinger fra sluttbrukere i utviklingsarbeidet og gjør nødvendige tilpasninger i flere omganger. 4) Informasjonsstrukturen bør følge ”1:3:25-prinsippet”. Her presenteres informasjonen både summarisk (1 side), kort oppsummert (3 sider), og mer utdypende (25 sider). I artikkelen beskriver vi flere presentasjonsformater vi har utviklet, blant annet ”Summary of Findings” der resultatene av Cochrane-oversikter presenteres i lettfattelige tabeller; ”plain language summaries”, som er tekstbaserte oppsummeringer rettet mot en bred lesergruppe; ”SUPPORT summaries” rettet mot byråkrater og ”policymakers”; og ”DECIDE Frameworks” der resultatene presenteres sammen med annen informasjon som er relevant i en beslutningsprosess.</p><p>Glenton C, Rosenbaum S. <strong>Cochrane in Norway – How do we disseminate findings from Cochrane reviews?</strong> <em>Nor J Epidemiol</em> 2013; <strong>23</strong> (2): 215-219.</p><p><strong>ENGLISH SUMMARY</strong></p><p>Cochrane systematic reviews are often perceived as inaccessible. One of the main activities of the Norwegian branch of the Cochrane Collaboration is to develop ways to present the results of Cochrane reviews so that they are easier to use. In this paper we describe four main principles that underlie this work, and several of the document formats we have helped produce. Our overarching principles: 1) Information should be understandable for people who do not have expert knowledge about research methodology. When it comes to understanding the results of systematic reviews, we have experienced that the biggest difference is between researchers and non-researchers and to a lesser extent between health personnel, patients and policy makers. 2) Information should be presented in a neutral form. 3) Information should be developed using a user-oriented approach. This involves us collecting responses from the end users in our developmental work and making the necessary adjustments in several phases. 4) The information structure should follow the “1:3:25 principle” where the information is structured in several layers, with increasing level of detail. In this paper, we describe several of the document formats that we have helped develop, including Summary of Findings tables, where we present the results of Cochrane reviews in tables; a plain language summary format where the results are presented as text-based summaries written for a broad user group; SUPPORT summaries written for policy makers; and DECIDE Frameworks, where the results are presented together with other information that may be relevant in a decision making process.</p>

scholarly journals Qualitative Evidence Syntheses Within Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care: Developing a Template and Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692110419
Author(s):  
Claire Glenton ◽  
Simon Lewin ◽  
Soo Downe ◽  
Elizabeth Paulsen ◽  
Susan Munabi-Babigumira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Effective Practice ◽  
Organisation Of Care ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Effective Practice

A growing number of researchers are preparing systematic reviews of qualitative evidence, often referred to as ‘qualitative evidence syntheses’. Cochrane published its first qualitative evidence synthesis in 2013 and published 27 such syntheses and protocols by August 2020. Most of these syntheses have explored how people experience or value different health conditions, treatments and outcomes. Several have been used by guideline producers and others to identify the topics that matter to people, consider the acceptability and feasibility of different healthcare options and identify implementation considerations, thereby complementing systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness.Guidance on how to conduct and report qualitative evidence syntheses exists. However, methods are evolving, and we still have more to learn about how to translate and integrate existing methodological guidance into practice. Cochrane’s Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) ( www.epoc.org ) has been involved in many of Cochrane’s qualitative evidence syntheses through the provision of editorial guidance and support and through co-authorship. In this article, we describe the development of a template and guidance for EPOC’s qualitative evidence syntheses and reflect on this process.

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

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.

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52
Author(s):  
Jennifer Petkovic ◽  
Vivian Welch ◽  
Marie Helena Jacob ◽  
Manosila Yoganathan ◽  
Ana Patricia Ayala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Evidence Summaries

scholarly journals Den norske EPOC-satellitten: støtte til kunnskapsbaserte beslutninger

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Munabi-Babigumira ◽  
Marit Johansen ◽  
Elizabeth Paulsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
English Summary ◽  
Effective Practice ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Review Group ◽  
Organisation Of Care ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
The Right ◽  
Cochrane Effective Practice

<p>Systematiske oversikter fra det internasjonale Cochrane-samarbeidet er en viktig kilde til oppsummert kunnskap for beslutningstakere i helsevesenet. Den norske satellitten av Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Review Group har base i Seksjon for global helse, Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten, og fokuserer på tiltak som retter seg mot helsesystemer og helsetjenesten i lav- og mellominntektsland. Den norske EPOC-satellitten gir redaksjonell støtte til forfattere som skriver Cochraneoversikter om effekter av slike tiltak, og bidrar dermed til at systematiske oversikter blir utarbeidet og brukt. Behovet for oppsummert kunnskap, skreddersydd for ulike sammenhenger og ulike sluttbrukere, er stort. Ikke minst gjelder det i lav- og mellominntektsland der ressursene er begrenset, og der gode prioriteringer er spesielt viktig.</p><p>Munabi-Babigumira S, Johansen M, Paulsen E. <strong>The Norwegian EPOC-satellite: Support for evidenceinformed decisions</strong>. <em>Nor J Epidemiol</em> 2013; <strong>23</strong> (2): 211-214.</p><p><strong>ENGLISH SUMMARY</strong></p><p>Systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration are an important source of summarised evidence for decision makers in health care. The Norwegian satellite of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Review Group has its base at the Global Health Unit in the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, and focuses on interventions targeting health systems and services in lowand middle-income countries. The Norwegian EPOC-satellite provides editorial support to authors who write systematic reviews on the effects of such interventions, and contributes to building the capacity for producing and using systematic reviews. The need for summarised evidence, tailored for various settings and various end users, is large. This is particularly important for low- and middle income countries, where resources are limited and it is important to identify the right priorities.</p>

scholarly journals Implementeringsforskning: vitenskap for forbedring av praksis

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Signe Flottorp ◽  
Eivind Aakhus
Keyword(s):  
Health Services ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Implementation Research ◽  
Behavioural Change ◽  
English Summary ◽  
Care Group ◽  
Effective Practice ◽  
Organisation Of Care ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Cochrane Effective Practice

<p>Medisinsk forskning har ført til store framskritt de siste tiårene. Det er investert mye mer ressurser på basalforskning og klinisk forskning enn på å utvikle og evaluere metoder for å sikre at pasientene får nytte av forskningen. Formålet med implementeringsforskning er å redusere gapet mellom forskning og praksis, ved å utvikle og evaluere tiltak som kan sikre at behandlingen som pasientene mottar er kunnskapsbasert, at den er omsorgsfull og av god kvalitet.</p><p>I denne artikkelen gjør vi rede for hva implementering og implementeringsforskning er. Vi belyser historikken til denne unge vitenskapen, og illustrerer mangfoldet i de faglige tilnærmingene og begrepene som brukes om det å få forskning brukt i praksis. Det finnes en rekke teorier om endring av atferd, både på individnivå og på organisatorisk nivå. Teoriene er imidlertid i liten grad testet empirisk, særlig når det gjelder å endre atferd i helsetjenesten.</p><p>Systematiske oversikter over metodisk gode studier er den beste kilden til informasjon om effekt av implementeringstiltak. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) er en viktig kilde for slike oversikter. De systematiske oversiktene som er utarbeidet på dette feltet viser at passive dissemineringstiltak har begrenset effekt, mens mer aktive tiltak kan ha liten til moderat effekt. Det er ofte betydelig variasjon i effekt på tvers av studiene. Det er derfor viktig å få bedre kunnskap om hvilke faktorer som kan forklare slike forskjeller i effekt.</p><p>Vi gir eksempler på norske implementeringsstudier, og refererer bidrag fra forskere ved Kunnskapssenteret. Implementeringsforskningen kan, hvis den lykkes, sikre pasientene bedre behandling.</p><p>Flottorp S, Aakhus E. <strong>Implementation research: science for improving practice</strong>. Nor J Epidemiol 201 3; <strong>23</strong> (2): 187-196.</p><p><strong>ENGLISH SUMMARY </strong></p><p>Medical research has led to major advances in recent decades. More resources have been invested in basic and clinical research than into the development and evaluation of methods to ensure that patients benefit of research findings. The purpose of implementation research is to reduce the gap between research and practice, by developing and evaluating measures to ensure that the treatment patients receive is evidencebased, caring and of high quality.</p><p>In this article, we briefly explain implementation and implementation research. We illustrate the history of this young science, and the diversity of academic approaches and concepts used when trying to get research into practice. There are a number of theories about behavioural change, both at the individual and organisational level. The theories are, however, rarely tested empirically, especially when it comes to changing behaviour in the health services.</p><p>Systematic reviews of methodologically rigorous studies are the best source of information about the effects of implementation interventions. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) is a major source of such reviews. The systematic reviews that have been produced in this area indicate that passive dissemination has limited impact, while more active interventions may have small to moderate effects. There is often considerable variation in the effects across studies. It is therefore important to gain better knowledge of the factors that may explain such effect-differences.</p><p>We give examples of Norwegian implementation studies, and refer contributions from researchers at the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. Implementation research has the potential, if successful, to ensure that patients receive better health care.</p>

Factors Related to the High Prevalence of Diabetic Kidney Disease in Ecuador-Update for Health Policy Makers

Diabetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 526-P
Author(s):  
MARIANA E. GUADALUPE ◽  
GRACIELA B. ALVAREZ CONDO ◽  
FANNY E. VERA LORENTI ◽  
BETTY J. PAZMIÑO GOMEZ ◽  
EDGAR I. RODAS NEIRA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Diabetic Kidney Disease ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Diabetic Kidney ◽  
High Prevalence

scholarly journals The Dimension of Sustainability: A Comparative Analysis of Broadness of Information in Italian Companies

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 1457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Spallini ◽  
Virginia Milone ◽  
Antonio Nisio ◽  
Patrizia Romanazzi
Keyword(s):  
Business Performance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Multivariate Regression Analysis ◽  
Global Reporting Initiative ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Regulatory Interventions ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
Key Dimensions ◽  
Positive Correlations

In recent years, sustainability has become one of the key dimensions of business performance. The results obtained in terms of sustainability must be adequately communicated in suitable reports, the quality of which is determined by several factors. One of these, the breadth of information provided, plays a significant role. The aim of this paper is to measure the broadness of non-financial information in sustainability reports and correlate this to some selected variables that refer to corporate governance, i.e., the presence of an internal sustainability committee and of female directors; the characteristics of the report e.g., Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) citation; company features, number of employees, revenues, and Return On Assets ROA. For this purpose, 134 Italian companies were studied and a score based on the conformity of the NFD (non-financial disclosure) with the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) standards was created. To test the research hypotheses, univariate analysis and multivariate regression analysis were performed. The results showed different behaviors by the companies in terms of sustainability policies. The GRISC (Global Reporting Initiative Score) has a greater concentration on mean values. Positive correlations were found between GRISC and the presence of an internal sustainability committee, SDG citation in the NFD and company size. This study offers support for policy makers and practitioners as it provides a measure of the breadth of sustainability information and relates this to the variables analyzed. The latter depend on regulatory interventions or company policies which are implemented, or could be implemented, to improve the extent of the NFD.

scholarly journals Levels of research evidence in health policy assessment in Malawi

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-250
Author(s):  
Patrick Mapulanga ◽  
Jaya Raju ◽  
Thomas Matingwina
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Health Policies ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policy Systems

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. Design/methodology/approach The study selected a typology of health policies in Malawi from 2002 to 2017. The study adopted the SPIRIT conceptual framework and assessed the levels of research evidence in health policy, systems and services research using the revised SAGE policy assessment tool. Documentary analysis was used to assess levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. Findings In 29 (96.7 per cent) of the health policies, policy formulators including healthcare directors and managers used generic search engines such as Google or Google Scholar to look for heath research evidence. In 28 (93.3 per cent) of the health policies, they searched for grey literature and other government documents. In only 6 (20 per cent) of the heath policy documents, they used academic literature in a form of journal articles and randomised controlled trials. No systematic reviews or policy briefs were consulted. Overall, in 23 (76.7 per cent) of the health policy documents, health research evidence played a minimal role and had very little influence on the policy documents or decision-making. Research limitations/implications The empirical evidence in the health policy documents are limited because of insufficient research citation, low retrievability of health research evidence in the policy documents and biased selectivity of what constitutes health research evidence. Practical implications The study indicates that unfiltered information (data from policy evaluations and registries) constitutes majority of the research evidence in health policies both in health policy, systems and services research. The study seeks to advocate for the use of filtered information (peer reviewed, clinical trials and data from systematic reviews) in formulating health policies. Originality/value There is dearth of literature on the levels of health research evidence in health policy-making both in health policy, systems and services research. This study seeks to bridge the gap with empirical evidence from a developing country perspective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document