ArticleBMJ open2020
Development of a checklist for people communicating evidence-based information about the effects of healthcare interventions: a mixed methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Alternative Presentations of Overall and Statistical Uncertainty for Adults' Understanding of the Results of a Randomized Trial of a Public Health Intervention: Parallel Web-Based Randomized Trials.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Informed decisions about public health and social measures.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025Article
- Advancing the impact of research through a dissemination-focused special interest group.BMJ open · 2025Review
- Research evidence communication for policy-makers: a rapid scoping review on frameworks, guidance and tools, and barriers and facilitators.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Article
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of the Gastroenterology Department Patients Towards Chronic Gastritis in Shanxi Region: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Demands on Health Information and Clinical Practice Guidelines for Patients from the Perspective of Adults with Mental Illness and Family Members: A Qualitative Study with In-Depth Interviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Bursting out of our bubble: using creative techniques to communicate within the systematic review process and beyond.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform?Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2021Review
- The reporting checklist for public versions of guidelines: RIGHT-PVG.Implementation science : IS · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo make informed decisions about healthcare, patients and the public, health professionals and policymakers need information about the effects of interventions. People need information that is based on the best available evidence; that is presented in a complete and unbiased way; and that is relevant, trustworthy and easy to use and to understand. The aim of this paper is to provide guidance and a checklist to those producing and communicating evidence-based information about the effects of interventions intended to inform decisions about healthcare.
designTo inform the development of this checklist, we identified research relevant to communicating evidence-based information about the effects of interventions. We used an iterative, informal consensus process to synthesise our recommendations. We began by discussing and agreeing on some initial recommendations, based on our own experience and research over the past 20-30 years. Subsequent revisions were informed by the literature we examined and feedback. We also compared our recommendations to those made by others. We sought structured feedback from people with relevant expertise, including people who prepare and use information about the effects of interventions for the public, health professionals or policymakers.
resultsWe produced a checklist with 10 recommendations. Three recommendations focus on making it easy to quickly determine the relevance of the information and find the key messages. Five recommendations are about helping the reader understand the size of effects and how sure we are about those estimates. Two recommendations are about helping the reader put information about intervention effects in context and understand if and why the information is trustworthy.
conclusionsThese 10 recommendations summarise lessons we have learnt developing and evaluating ways of helping people to make well-informed decisions by making research evidence more understandable and useful for them. We welcome feedback for how to improve our advice.
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.