Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted.
| Autor: | Moat, Kaelan A., Lavis, John N., Wilson, Mike G., Røttingen, John-Arne, Bärnighausen, Till |
|---|---|
| Předmět: |
DATABASE evaluation
EXPERIMENTAL design HEALTH care rationing MEDICAL care EVALUATION of medical care HEALTH policy POLICY sciences READABILITY (Literary style) RESEARCH evaluation SYSTEMATIC reviews EVIDENCE-based medicine PROFESSIONAL practice THEORY-practice relationship ACCESS to information STANDARDS |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Health Services Research & Policy; Jan2013, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p44-50, 7p |
| Abstrakt: | Systematic reviews are increasingly being viewed as important sources of information for policymakers who need to make decisions on different aspects of the health system, often under tight time constraints and with many factors competing for their attention. Unfortunately, a number of misconceptions, or 'myths', stand in the way of promoting their use. The belief that systematic review topics are not relevant to health systems policymaking, that they cannot be found quickly, and that they are not available in formats that are useful for policymakers are but three examples of such myths. This paper uses evidence drawn mainly from Health Systems Evidence, a continuously updated repository of syntheses of health systems research, to counter these and nine other common myths, with the aim of changing the constraining beliefs associated with them, while improving the prospects for the use of systematic reviews in health system policymaking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: | Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|