| Autor: |
Christine Marquez, Alekhya Mascarenhas Johnson, Sabrina Jassemi, Jamie Park, Julia E. Moore, Caroline Blaine, Gertrude Bourdon, Mark Chignell, Moriah E. Ellen, Jacques Fortin, Ian D. Graham, Anne Hayes, Jemila Hamid, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Michael Hillmer, Bev Holmes, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc, Linda Hubert, Brian Hutton, Monika Kastner, John N. Lavis, Karen Michell, David Moher, Mathieu Ouimet, Laure Perrier, Andrea Proctor, Thomas Noseworthy, Victoria Schuckel, Sharlene Stayberg, Marcello Tonelli, Andrea C. Tricco, Sharon E. Straus |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2018 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Implementation Science, Vol 13, Iss 1, Pp 1-14 (2018) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
1748-5908 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s13012-018-0779-9 |
| Popis: |
Abstract Background Systematic reviews are infrequently used by health care managers (HCMs) and policy-makers (PMs) in decision-making. HCMs and PMs co-developed and tested novel systematic review of effects formats to increase their use. Methods A three-phased approach was used to evaluate the determinants to uptake of systematic reviews of effects and the usability of an innovative and a traditional systematic review of effects format. In phase 1, survey and interviews were conducted with HCMs and PMs in four Canadian provinces to determine perceptions of a traditional systematic review format. In phase 2, systematic review format prototypes were created by HCMs and PMs via Conceptboard©. In phase 3, prototypes underwent usability testing by HCMs and PMs. Results Two hundred two participants (80 HCMs, 122 PMs) completed the phase 1 survey. Respondents reported that inadequate format (Mdn = 4; IQR = 4; range = 1–7) and content (Mdn = 4; IQR = 3; range = 1–7) influenced their use of systematic reviews. Most respondents (76%; n = 136/180) reported they would be more likely to use systematic reviews if the format was modified. Findings from 11 interviews (5 HCMs, 6 PMs) revealed that participants preferred systematic reviews of effects that were easy to access and read and provided more information on intervention effectiveness and less information on review methodology. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 55.7 (standard deviation [SD] 17.2) for the traditional format; a SUS score |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
|
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje |
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
|
