Creating a Registry of Evidence for Public Health Decision Making: Peaks and Gaps in the Systematic Review Literature

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/155770
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Creating a Registry of Evidence for Public Health Decision Making: Peaks and Gaps in the Systematic Review Literature
Abstract:
Creating a Registry of Evidence for Public Health Decision Making: Peaks and Gaps in the Systematic Review Literature
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2002
Conference Date:July, 2002
Author:Dobbins, Maureen
P.I. Institution Name:McMaster University
Title:Assistant Professor
OBJECTIVE: There is a strong movement in healthcare towards evidence-based practice. Translating research into practice requires that decision-makers accept and use the available evidence. Systematic reviews consolidate the research in a specific area, provide greater confidence in the effectiveness of interventions, and are becoming a valuable source of information for decision-makers. The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate strategies to disseminate the findings of systematic reviews among public health and health promotion decision-makers. The five objectives of this study include: developing a comprehensive database of all published reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health and health promotion interventions; critically appraising the review methods and making reviews and quality ratings available on-line to all decision-makers; interviewing decision makers to determine their preferences for receiving research evidence including issues related to the content of research reports; conducting a pilot evaluation of the dissemination strategy; and identifying gaps in the literature so that future systematic reviews conducted in the field will be relevant to decision-makers. DESIGN: An extensive search of the literature was performed. Relevance, keywording, and validity tools were applied consistently to systematic reviews located in the search. POPULATION, SAMPLE, SETTING, YEARS: Systematic reviews (1985-2001) relevant to public health and health promotion in Canada were included. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME VARIABLES: Review quality was assessed by applying quality criteria using a validity tool developed for the study. METHODS: The review literature was surveyed using electronic searches of 6 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Biosis, Psychlit, and Sociological Abstracts). Handsearching was performed for 21 relevant journals, as well as 5 - 10 core journals in each specific topic area, and all reference lists were reviewed to identify additional relevant articles. The retrieved reviews were rated for relevance using a pre-tested relevance tool. Reviews deemed relevant were then keyworded for major topic areas and assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. All assessment tools were developed and pre-tested prior to use. Inter-rater reliability was tested throughout the process at regular intervals and was found to be high (kappa=0.8). All reviews are to be included in a registry to be made publicly available through multiple venues. Partnerships formed during the course of the project were used to identify researchers/organizations both nationally and internationally that could contribute to the development of the registry. FINDINGS: There are significant gaps in the systematic review literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in public health/health promotion. For example, evidence for the effectiveness of interventions in Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, dementia, and lung disease is lacking, while there is a great deal of evidence for interventions in addiction and drug use, cardiovascular disease, and injuries and safety. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of a registry of reviews indicates areas that demonstrate both a wealth of knowledge and those that show significant gaps in the literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in public health and health promotion. Keywording and validity tools provided a consistent way to access and use reviews within the registry. IMPLICATIONS: There is a need to fill gaps in the systematic review literature in public health and health promotion in Canada. The formation of partnerships with Canadian and international organizations can assist with the completion of reviews and the maintenance of a comprehensive registry of reviews. Making this registry accessible and creating awareness will contribute to research-informed decision making in Canada.

Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
Jul-2002
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleCreating a Registry of Evidence for Public Health Decision Making: Peaks and Gaps in the Systematic Review Literatureen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/155770-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Creating a Registry of Evidence for Public Health Decision Making: Peaks and Gaps in the Systematic Review Literature</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2002</td></tr><tr class="item-conference-date"><td class="label">Conference Date:</td><td class="value">July, 2002</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Dobbins, Maureen</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">McMaster University</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Assistant Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">dobbinsm@mcmaster.ca</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">OBJECTIVE: There is a strong movement in healthcare towards evidence-based practice. Translating research into practice requires that decision-makers accept and use the available evidence. Systematic reviews consolidate the research in a specific area, provide greater confidence in the effectiveness of interventions, and are becoming a valuable source of information for decision-makers. The purpose of this study is to develop and evaluate strategies to disseminate the findings of systematic reviews among public health and health promotion decision-makers. The five objectives of this study include: developing a comprehensive database of all published reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health and health promotion interventions; critically appraising the review methods and making reviews and quality ratings available on-line to all decision-makers; interviewing decision makers to determine their preferences for receiving research evidence including issues related to the content of research reports; conducting a pilot evaluation of the dissemination strategy; and identifying gaps in the literature so that future systematic reviews conducted in the field will be relevant to decision-makers. DESIGN: An extensive search of the literature was performed. Relevance, keywording, and validity tools were applied consistently to systematic reviews located in the search. POPULATION, SAMPLE, SETTING, YEARS: Systematic reviews (1985-2001) relevant to public health and health promotion in Canada were included. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME VARIABLES: Review quality was assessed by applying quality criteria using a validity tool developed for the study. METHODS: The review literature was surveyed using electronic searches of 6 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Biosis, Psychlit, and Sociological Abstracts). Handsearching was performed for 21 relevant journals, as well as 5 - 10 core journals in each specific topic area, and all reference lists were reviewed to identify additional relevant articles. The retrieved reviews were rated for relevance using a pre-tested relevance tool. Reviews deemed relevant were then keyworded for major topic areas and assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. All assessment tools were developed and pre-tested prior to use. Inter-rater reliability was tested throughout the process at regular intervals and was found to be high (kappa=0.8). All reviews are to be included in a registry to be made publicly available through multiple venues. Partnerships formed during the course of the project were used to identify researchers/organizations both nationally and internationally that could contribute to the development of the registry. FINDINGS: There are significant gaps in the systematic review literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in public health/health promotion. For example, evidence for the effectiveness of interventions in Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, dementia, and lung disease is lacking, while there is a great deal of evidence for interventions in addiction and drug use, cardiovascular disease, and injuries and safety. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of a registry of reviews indicates areas that demonstrate both a wealth of knowledge and those that show significant gaps in the literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in public health and health promotion. Keywording and validity tools provided a consistent way to access and use reviews within the registry. IMPLICATIONS: There is a need to fill gaps in the systematic review literature in public health and health promotion in Canada. The formation of partnerships with Canadian and international organizations can assist with the completion of reviews and the maintenance of a comprehensive registry of reviews. Making this registry accessible and creating awareness will contribute to research-informed decision making in Canada.<br/><br/></td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T14:09:29Z-
dc.date.issued2002-07en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T14:09:29Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.