Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21619621›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2011

Effects of an evidence service on health-system policy makers' use of research evidence: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

John N Lavis, Michael G Wilson, Jeremy M Grimshaw, R Brian Haynes, Steven Hanna, Parminder Raina, Russell Gruen, Mathieu Ouimet

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01307228 (Effects of an Evidence Service on Health System Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01307228 nawithdrawnnot on this map

Effects of an Evidence Service on Health System Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2010 to 2013Enrolled0ConditionsUse of Research EvidenceArmsHealth Systems Evidence
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

John N LavisMcMaster Health Forum, Hamilton, Canada. lavisj@mcmaster.ca
Michael G Wilson
Jeremy M Grimshaw
R Brian Haynes
Steven Hanna
Parminder Raina
Russell Gruen
Mathieu Ouimet

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth-system policy makers need timely access to synthesised research evidence to inform the policy-making process. No efforts to address this need have been evaluated using an experimental quantitative design. We developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence, which is a database of policy-relevant systematic reviews. The reviews have been (a) categorised by topic and type of review; (b) coded by the last year searches for studies were conducted and by the countries in which included studies were conducted; (c) rated for quality; and (d) linked to available user-friendly summaries, scientific abstracts, and full-text reports. Our goal is to evaluate whether a "full-serve" evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) as compared to a "self-serve" evidence service. METHODS/

designWe will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study in order to explore the findings in greater depth. For the RCT, all policy analysts and policy advisors (n = 168) in a single division of the MOHLTC will be invited to participate. Using a stratified randomized design, participants will be randomized to receive either the "full-serve" evidence service (database access, monthly e-mail alerts, and full-text article availability) or the "self-serve" evidence service (database access only). The trial duration will be ten months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month cross-over period). The primary outcome will be the mean number of site visits/month/user between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be participants' intention to use research evidence. For the qualitative study, 15 participants from each trial arm (n = 30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first RCT to evaluate the effects of an evidence service specifically designed to support health-system policy makers in finding and using research evidence.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01307228.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelEvidence-Based MedicineHumansOntarioOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePolicy MakingResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID21619621
PMCPMC3123565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.