ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018
Facilitating evidence uptake: development and user testing of a systematic review summary format to inform public health decision-making in German-speaking countries.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Challenges of using evidence in managerial decision-making of the primary health care system.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2022Pooled it
- Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Guidelines and recommendations for preparing policy briefs from research into policy-making in health sciences: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Disseminating health research to public health policy-makers and practitioners: a survey of source, message content and delivery modality preferences.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Characteristics of the sources, evaluation, and grading of the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews in public health: A methodological study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Stakeholder Involvement in Systematic Reviews: Lessons From Cochrane's Public Health and Health Systems Network.American journal of public health · 2021Article
- [Insights for healthy settings: a database to support the translation of findings from systematic reviews into practice].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021Review
- [Establishing evidence-based prevention and health promotion: criteria for evidence-based interventions and necessary organizational requirements and capacities].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021Review
- [Promotion of physical activity among the elderly as an example of knowledge translation: How do scientific findings enter community practice?]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021Article
- Use of the GRADE approach in health policymaking and evaluation: a scoping review of nutrition and physical activity policies.Implementation science : IS · 2020Article
- Comprehensibility of Fact Sheets Addressing Benefits and Risks of Preventive Interventions: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation Study.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews are an important source of evidence for public health decision-making, but length and technical jargon tend to hinder their use. In non-English speaking countries, inaccessibility of information in the native language often represents an additional barrier. In line with our vision to strengthen evidence-based public health in the German-speaking world, we developed a German language summary format for systematic reviews of public health interventions and undertook user-testing with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
methodsWe used several guiding principles and core elements identified from the literature to produce a prototype summary format and applied it to a Cochrane review on the impacts of changing portion and package sizes on selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Following a pre-test in each of the three countries, we carried out 18 user tests with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland using the 'think-aloud' method. We analysed participants' comments according to the facets credibility, usability, understandability, usefulness, desirability, findability, identification and accessibility. We also identified elements that hindered the facile and satisfying use of the summary format, and revised it based on participants' feedback.
resultsThe summary format was well-received; participants particularly appreciated receiving information in their own language. They generally found the summary format useful and a credible source of information, but also signalled several barriers to a positive user experience such as an information-dense structure and difficulties with understanding statistical terms. Many of the identified challenges were addressed through modifications of the summary format, in particular by allowing for flexible length, placing more emphasis on key messages and relevance for public health practice, expanding the interpretation aid for statistical findings, providing a glossary of technical terms, and only including graphical GRADE ratings. Some barriers to uptake, notably the participants' wish for actionable recommendations and contextual information, could not be addressed.
conclusionsParticipants welcomed the initiative, but user tests also revealed their problems with understanding and interpreting the findings summarised in our prototype format. The revised summary format will be used to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews of public health interventions.
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.