Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jan 12:11:4.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1.

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

Affiliations

Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

Andrea C Tricco et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: We completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.

Methods: We used the Arksey and O'Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.

Results: We identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.

Conclusions: Systematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram

References

    1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268(2):240–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.1992.03490020088036. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grimshaw JM, Santesso N, Cumpston M, Mayhew A, McGowan J. Knowledge for knowledge translation: the role of the Cochrane Collaboration. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):55–62. doi: 10.1002/chp.51. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Blondal E, Veroniki AA, Khan PA, Vafaei A, et al. Comparative safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2015;13:142. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0379-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Blondal E, Veroniki AA, Khan PA, Vafaei A, et al. Comparative efficacy of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2015;13:136. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0371-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms