-
Campbell Systematic Reviews 2018This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making,...
UNLABELLED
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most effective ways to present evidence summaries to increase policymakers' use of the evidence. This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one. The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at "policy briefs," one study looked at an "evidence summary," two looked at a "summary of findings table," and one compared a "summary of findings table" to an evidence summary. None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, "Is this summary easy to understand?" Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
It is likely that evidence summaries are easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. Whether these summaries increase the use of evidence from systematic reviews in policymaking is not clear. Systematic reviews are long and technical documents that may be hard for policymakers to use when making decisions. Evidence summaries are short documents that describe research findings in systematic reviews. These summaries may simplify the use of systematic reviews.Other names for evidence reviews are , , , or . The goal of this review was to learn whether evidence summaries help policymakers use evidence from systematic reviews. This review also aimed to identify the best ways to present the evidence summary to increase the use of evidence. This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one.The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at "policy briefs," one study looked at an "evidence summary," two looked at a "summary of findings table," and one compared a "summary of findings table" to an evidence summary.None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, "Is this summary easy to understand?"Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read.. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews. Our review suggests that evidence summaries help policymakers to better understand the findings presented in systematic reviews. In short, evidence summaries should be developed to make it easier for policymakers to understand the evidence presented in systematic reviews. However, right now there is very little evidence on the best way to present systematic review evidence to policymakers. The authors of this review searched for studies through June 2016.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which makes them hard to use for decision-making. Strategies to promote the use of evidence to decision makers are required, and evidence summaries have been suggested as a facilitator. Evidence summaries include policy briefs, briefing papers, briefing notes, evidence briefs, abstracts, summary of findings tables, and plain language summaries. There are many organizations developing and disseminating systematic review evidence summaries for different populations or subsets of decision makers. However, evidence on the usefulness and effectiveness of systematic review summaries is lacking. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review evidence summaries. This systematic review aimed to 1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policy-makers' use of the evidence and 2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policy-makers' use of the evidence. We searched several online databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Global Health Library, Popline, Africa-wide, Public Affairs Information Services, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Web of Science, and DfiD), websites of research groups and organizations which produce evidence summaries, and reference lists of included summaries and related systematic reviews. These databases were searched in March-April, 2016. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary", "policy brief", or other product derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. These interventions could be compared to active comparators (e.g. other summary formats) or no intervention.The primary outcomes were: 1) use of systematic review summaries decision-making (e.g. self-reported use of the evidence in policy-making, decision-making) and 2) policymaker understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g. changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g. format) of the summaries. Our database search combined with our grey literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text and we included 6 studies (reported in 7 papers, 1661 participants) as well as protocols from 2 ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (4 studies) and perceived usefulness or usability (3 studies). Summary of Findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for Summary of Findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes. No studies assessed adverse effects. The risks of bias in these studies were mainly assessed as unclear or low however, two studies were assessed as high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data due to very high rates of attrition. Evidence summaries may be easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.
PubMed: 37131376
DOI: 10.4073/csr.2018.8 -
European Journal of Clinical... Aug 2018Unclear labeling has been recognized as an important cause of look-alike medication errors. The aim of this literature review is to systematically evaluate the current... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Unclear labeling has been recognized as an important cause of look-alike medication errors. The aim of this literature review is to systematically evaluate the current evidence on strategies to minimize medication errors due to look-alike labels.
METHODS
A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE for all available years was performed independently by two reviewers. Original studies assessing strategies to minimize medication errors due to look-alike labels focusing on readability of labels by health professionals or consumers were included. Data were analyzed descriptively due to the variability of study methods.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included. Thirteen studies were performed in a laboratory and three in a healthcare setting. Eleven studies evaluated Tall Man lettering, i.e., capitalizing parts of the drug name, two color-coding, and three studies other strategies. In six studies, lower error rates were found for the Tall Man letter strategy; one showed significantly higher error rates. Effects of Tall Man lettering on response time were more varied. A study in the hospital setting did not show an effect on the potential look-alike sound-alike error rate by introducing Tall Man lettering. Color-coding had no effect on the prevention of syringe-swaps in one study.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies performed in laboratory settings showed that Tall Man lettering contributed to a better readability of medication labels. Only few studies evaluated other strategies such as color-coding. More evidence, especially from real-life setting is needed to support safe labeling strategies.
Topics: Drug Labeling; Health Personnel; Hospitals; Humans; Medication Errors; Product Labeling; Reaction Time
PubMed: 29754215
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-018-2471-z -
BMC Public Health Aug 2016Rational medicine use is essential to optimize quality of healthcare delivery and resource utilization. We aim to conduct a systematic review of changes in prescribing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rational medicine use is essential to optimize quality of healthcare delivery and resource utilization. We aim to conduct a systematic review of changes in prescribing patterns in the WHO African region and comparison with WHO indicators in two time periods 1995-2005 and 2006-2015.
METHODS
Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, Africa-Wide Nipad, Africa Journals Online (AJOL), Google scholar and International Network for Rational Use of Drugs (INRUD) Bibliography databases to identify primary studies reporting prescribing indicators at primary healthcare centres (PHCs) in Africa. This was supplemented by a manual search of retrieved references. We assessed the quality of studies using a 14-point scoring system modified from the Downs and Black checklist with inclusions of recommendations in the WHO guidelines.
RESULTS
Forty-three studies conducted in 11 African countries were included in the overall analysis. These studies presented prescribing indicators based on a total 141,323 patient encounters across 572 primary care facilities. The results of prescribing indicators were determined as follows; average number of medicines prescribed per patient encounter = 3.1 (IQR 2.3-4.8), percentage of medicines prescribed by generic name =68.0 % (IQR 55.4-80.3), Percentage of encounters with antibiotic prescribed =46.8 % (IQR 33.7-62.8), percentage of encounters with injection prescribed =25.0 % (IQR 18.7-39.5) and the percentage of medicines prescribed from essential medicines list =88.0 % (IQR 76.3-94.1). Prescribing indicators were generally worse in private compared with public facilities. Analysis of prescribing across two time points 1995-2005 and 2006-2015 showed no consistent trends.
CONCLUSIONS
Prescribing indicators for the African region deviate significantly from the WHO reference targets. Increased collaborative efforts are urgently needed to improve medicine prescribing practices in Africa with the aim of enhancing the optimal utilization of scarce resources and averting negative health consequences.
Topics: Africa; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Delivery of Health Care; Drug Prescriptions; Drugs, Essential; Guideline Adherence; Health Resources; Humans; Injections; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Primary Health Care; Retrospective Studies; World Health Organization
PubMed: 27545670
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3428-8 -
Journal of Public Health Management and... 2019Students may lose knowledge and skills achieved in the school year during the summer break, with losses greatest for students from low-income families. Community Guide...
Examining the Effectiveness of Year-Round School Calendars on Improving Educational Attainment Outcomes Within the Context of Advancement of Health Equity: A Community Guide Systematic Review.
Students may lose knowledge and skills achieved in the school year during the summer break, with losses greatest for students from low-income families. Community Guide systematic review methods were used to summarize evaluations (published 1965-2015) of the effectiveness of year-round school calendars (YRSCs) on academic achievement, a determinant of long-term health. In single-track YRSCs, all students participate in the same school calendar; summer breaks are replaced by short "intersessions" distributed evenly throughout the year. In multi-track YRSCs, cohorts of students follow separate calendar tracks, with breaks at different times throughout the year. An earlier systematic review reported modest gains with single-track calendars and no gains with multi-track calendars. Three studies reported positive and negative effects for single-track programs and potential harm with multi-track programs when low-income students were assigned poorly resourced tracks. Lack of clarity about the role of intersessions as simple school breaks or as additional schooling opportunities in YRSCs leaves the evidence on single-track programs insufficient. Evidence on multi-track YRSCs is also insufficient.
Topics: Child; Education; Educational Status; Health Equity; Humans; Schools
PubMed: 30325796
DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000860 -
Neurology. Clinical Practice Dec 2016
PubMed: 28058205
DOI: 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000318 -
BMC Health Services Research Dec 2019In the original publication of this article [1], one author's name needs to be revised from Pavaneh Isfahani to Parvaneh Isfahani.
In the original publication of this article [1], one author's name needs to be revised from Pavaneh Isfahani to Parvaneh Isfahani.
PubMed: 31822274
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4766-x