Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29986706›Full record

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.

Laura K Busert, Margot Mütsch, Christina Kien, Aline Flatz, Ursula Griebler, Manfred Wildner, Jan M Stratil, Eva A Rehfuess, Cochrane Public Health Europe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  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

9 authors.

Laura K BusertInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Margot MütschEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Hirschengraben 84, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christina KienDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Danube University Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria.
Aline FlatzCochrane Switzerland, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Biopôle 2, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ursula GrieblerDepartment for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Danube University Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria.
Manfred WildnerInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Jan M StratilInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Eva A RehfuessInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. rehfuess@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de.
Cochrane Public Health Europe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineInformation DisseminationLanguagePublic HealthSystematic Reviews as TopicComprehensionGermanyHealth PolicyHumansSwitzerlanddecision-makingevidence-based public healthevidence synthesisGRADEknowledge disseminationknowledge translationpublic healthSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29986706
PMCPMC6038322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.