Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38303034›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2024

The effectiveness of interventions to disseminate the results of non-commercial randomised clinical trials to healthcare professionals: a systematic review.

Annabelle South, Julia V Bailey, Mahesh K B Parmar, Claire L Vale

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Annabelle SouthMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, 90 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6LJ, UK. a.south@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8912-2001
Julia V BaileyResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL, London, UK.
Mahesh K B ParmarMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, 90 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6LJ, UK.
Claire L ValeMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, UCL, 90 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6LJ, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/08
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is unclear how to disseminate the results of randomised controlled trials effectively to health professionals and policymakers to improve treatment, care or prevention through changing policy and practice. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of different methods of dissemination of clinical research results to professional audiences.

methodsWe systematically reviewed the published and grey literature from 2000 to 2022 for studies assessing different approaches for disseminating clinical study results to professional audiences (health professionals, policymakers and guideline developers). Two reviewers assessed potentially relevant full texts for inclusion. We grouped studies by intervention type, synthesising findings using effect direction plots. Outcomes were grouped into out-takes (e.g. awareness, knowledge, understanding), outcomes (e.g. attitude changes) and impact (changes in policy/practice). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

resultsOur search identified 13,264 unique records, of which 416 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Of 60 studies that were identified as eligible for inclusion, 20 evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to disseminate clinical research results (13 RCTs, 2 observational studies, 3 pre- and post-intervention surveys and 2 cross-sectional surveys). Studies were grouped by intervention: 7 studies that involved face-to-face meetings between the target audience and trained educators were classified as 'outreach interventions'; 5 studies that provided a summary format for systematic review findings (e.g. summary of findings tables) were grouped together. There was high certainty evidence of a small beneficial impact of outreach interventions on health and moderate certainty evidence of impact on practice (mostly prescribing). There was no evidence of impact on policy and very low certainty around benefits on outcomes and out-takes. We found no consistent benefits of summary formats for systematic review results on outcomes or out-takes (moderate quality evidence). Other interventions with less evidence are reported in the Additional Materials.

conclusionsOutreach interventions to disseminate clinical research results can lead to changes in practice and improvements in health. However, these interventions can be resource-intensive. Investment is vital to identify and implement effective and cost-effective ways to disseminate results, so that the potential benefits of trials to patients can be realised.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42019137364.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAcademic detailingClinical studiesCommunicationDisseminationHealth professionalsKnowledge brokerOutreachPolicymakers

Identifiers

PMID38303034
PMCPMC10835915

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.