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.
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.
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.
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.
Effects of an Evidence Service on Health System Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Effects of an evidence service on community-based AIDS service organizations' use of research evidence: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2011Trial
- Connections between health research systems and decision-making spaces: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic in the province of Québec, Canada.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Protocol for a hybrid type 2 cluster randomized trial of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy and a pragmatic individual-level implementation strategy.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Validity and reliability of the Evidence Utilisation in Policymaking Measurement Tool (EUPMT).Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- An audience research study to disseminate evidence about comprehensive state mental health parity legislation to US State policymakers: protocol.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Does access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improve uptake and use of research evidence by health service commissioners? A controlled before and after study.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Views of health system policymakers on the role of research in health policymaking in Israel.Israel journal of health policy research · 2016Article
- A process evaluation accompanying an attempted randomized controlled trial of an evidence service for health system policymakers.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue.Systematic reviews · 2015Article
- Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: protocol for a controlled before and after study.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
- Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators.BMJ quality & safety · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.