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 Dec 9;11(1):162.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0530-3.

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review

Jennifer Petkovic  1   2 , Vivian Welch  3   4 , Maria Helena Jacob  3 , Manosila Yoganathan  3 , Ana Patricia Ayala  5 , Heather Cunningham  5 , Peter Tugwell  6   7   8
Affiliations

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review

Jennifer Petkovic et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers' use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers' use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products.

Methods: We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary," "policy brief," or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers' understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries.

Results: Our database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes.

Conclusions: Evidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.

Trial registration: The protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122).

Keywords: Evidence summaries; Policymakers; Systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of bias
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, O’Neill J, et al. PRISMA-Equity 2012 Extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lavis JN, Davies HT, Gruen RL, Walshe K, Farquhar CM. Working within and beyond the Cochrane Collaboration to make systematic reviews more useful to healthcare managers and policy makers. Healthc Policy. 2006;1:21–33. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Macintyre SJ, Graham H, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: the reality according to policymakers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:811–816. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.015289. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moat KA, Lavis JN, Abelson J. How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis. Milbank Q. 2013;91:604–648. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12026. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Wiysonge CS, Abalos E, Mignini L, Young T, Althabe F, Ciapponi A, Marti SG, Meng Q, et al. Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:54–61. doi: 10.2471/BLT.10.075481. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding