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>

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 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 Health promotion at the workplace setting: a protocol for a systematic review of effectiveness and sustainability of current practice in low-income and middle-income countries

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e027050
Author(s):  
Mary Njeri Wanjau ◽  
Belen Zapata-Diomedi ◽  
Lennert Veerman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Workplace Health Promotion ◽  
The Body ◽  
Workplace Health ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Workplace Setting

IntroductionLow-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are experiencing a growing disease burden due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Changing behavioural practices, such as diets high in saturated fat, salt and sugar and sedentary lifestyles, have been associated with the increase in NCDs. Health promotion at the workplace setting is considered effective in the fight against NCDs and has been reported to yield numerous benefits. However, there is a need to generate evidence on the effectiveness and sustainability of workplace health promotion practice specific to LMICs. We aim to synthesise the current literature on workplace health promotion in LMICs focusing on interventions effectiveness and sustainability.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of published studies from LMICs up to 31 March 2019. We will search the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and CINAHL. Two reviewers will independently screen potential articles for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by consensus. We will appraise the quality and risk of bias of included studies using two tools from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. We will present a narrative overview and assessment of the body of evidence derived from the comprehensive review of the studies. The reported outcomes will be summarised by study design, duration, intensity/frequency of intervention delivery and by the six-priority health promotion action areas set out in the Ottawa Charter. We will conduct a thematic analysis to identify the focus areas of current interventions. This systematic review protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta- analyses for Protocols 2015 statement.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require ethics approval. We will disseminate the results of this review through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberCRD42018110853.

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 Evidence gap map of performance measurement and management in primary healthcare systems in low-income and middle-income countries

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (Suppl 8) ◽  
pp. e001451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Munar ◽  
Birte Snilstveit ◽  
Ligia Esther Aranda ◽  
Nilakshi Biswas ◽  
Theresa Baffour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Unintended Effects ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries

IntroductionWe mapped available evidence on performance measurement and management (PMM) strategies in primary healthcare (PHC) systems of low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Widely used, their effectiveness remains inconclusive. This evidence gap map characterises existing research and evidence gaps.MethodsSystematic mapping of performance measurement and management research in LMICs from 2000 to mid-2018; literature searches of seven academic databases and institutional repositories of impact evaluations and systematic reviews. Using a combination of manual screening and machine learning, four reviewers appraised 38 088 titles and abstracts, and extracted metadata from 137 impact evaluations and 18 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria. The resulting visual representation of the evidence base was uploaded to a web-based platform.ResultsSince 2000, the number of studies has increased; the first systematic reviews were completed in 2010. Two-thirds of the studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Randomised controlled trials were the most frequently used study design. The evidence is concentrated in two types of PMM strategies: implementation strategies (in-service training, continuing education, supervision) and performance-based financing. Major gaps exist in accountability arrangements particularly the use of audit and feedback. The least studied types of outcomes were unintended effects, harm and social equity.ConclusionsThe evidence is clustered around interventions that are unlikely to achieve transformational change in health outcomes. The gaps identified suggest that routinely used PMM strategies are implemented without sufficient knowledge of their effects. Future efforts at redesigning PHC systems need to be informed by evidence on the most effective approaches for using PMM strategies.

scholarly journals Evaluating health systems strengthening interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: are we asking the right questions?

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (suppl 4) ◽  
pp. iv9-iv19 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Adam ◽  
J. Hsu ◽  
D. de Savigny ◽  
J. N. Lavis ◽  
J.-A. Rottingen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Systems ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Health Systems Strengthening ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals Theatres without borders: a systematic review of the use of intraoperative telemedicine in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjinnov-2021-000837
Author(s):  
Hariharan Subbiah Ponniah ◽  
Viraj Shah ◽  
Arian Arjomandi Rad ◽  
Robert Vardanyan ◽  
George Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Low Middle Income Countries

ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to provide a summary of the use of real-time telementoring, telesurgical consultation and telesurgery in surgical procedures in patients in low/middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane Collaboration published guidelines.Data sourcesEMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for original articles and case reports that discussed telementoring, telesurgery or telesurgical consultation in countries defined as low-income or middle-income (as per the World Banks’s 2021–2022 classifications) from inception to August 2021.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesAll original articles and case reports were included if they reported the use of telemedicine, telesurgery or telesurgical consultation in procedures conducted on patients in LMICs.ResultsThere were 12 studies which discussed the use of telementoring in 55 patients in LMICs and included a variety of surgical specialities. There was one study that discussed the use of telesurgical consultation in 15 patients in LMICs and one study that discussed the use of telesurgery in one patient.ConclusionThe presence of intraoperative telemedicine in LMICs represents a principal move towards improving access to specialist surgical care for patients in resource-poor settings. Not only do several studies demonstrate that it facilitates training and educational opportunities, but it remains a relatively frugal and efficient method of doing so, through empowering local surgeons in LMICs towards offering optimal care while remaining in their respective communities.

scholarly journals Nurse staffing and patient care outcomes: protocol for an umbrella review to identify evidence gaps for low and middle-income countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 363
Author(s):  
Abdulazeez Imam ◽  
Sopuruchukwu Obiesie ◽  
Jalemba Aluvaala ◽  
Michuki Maina ◽  
David Gathara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nurse Staffing ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Background: Adequate staffing is key to the delivery of nursing care and thus to improved inpatient and health service outcomes. Several systematic reviews have addressed the relationship between nurse staffing and these outcomes. Most primary studies within each systematic review are likely to be from high-income countries which have different practice contexts to low and middle-income countries (LMICs), although this has not been formally examined. We propose conducting an umbrella review to characterise the existing evidence linking nurse staffing to key outcomes and explicitly aim to identify evidence gaps in nurse staffing research in LMICs. Methods and analysis: This protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Literature searching will be conducted across Ovid Medline, Embase and EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Two independent reviewers will conduct searching and data abstraction and discordance will be handled by discussion between both parties. The risk of bias of the individual studies will be performed using the AMSTAR-2. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical permission is not required for this review as we will make use of already published data. We aim to publish the findings of our review in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021286908

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document