Literature DB >> 21895902

The Cochrane Library review titles that are important to users of health care, a Cochrane Consumer Network project.

Janet L Wale1, María Belizán, Jane Nadel, Claire Jeffrey, Sita L Vij.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane Consumer Network is an internet-based community of international users of health care contributing to the work of The Cochrane Collaboration, whose mission is to inform healthcare decision making through development of systematic reviews of best evidence on healthcare interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To prioritize existing review titles listed on The Cochrane Library from a healthcare user perspective, with particular emphasis on patients, carers and health consumers.
DESIGN: An online survey was developed and after piloting was made available internationally. The broad dissemination strategy targeted Consumer Network members and Cochrane Review Group editorial staff to identify champions who notified patient support groups and participated in snowballing. The first part of the survey defined criteria that could be applied to review titles and asked survey respondents to rank them. The second part asked respondents to select a health area and prioritize review titles that were of importance to them. Each health area corresponded to a Cochrane Review Group. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Sufficient responses were obtained from 522 valid responses to prioritize review topics in 19 health areas. A total of 321 respondents completed the titles assessment. The types of prioritized interventions were determined by the health area. An important observation was the emphasis on lifestyle and non-medication therapies in many of the included health areas. The clearest exception to this broad observation was where acute care is required such as antibiotics for acute respiratory tract and HIV-associated infections and for cardiac conditions. For some cancers, advanced cancer interventions were prioritized. The most important criteria were for the title to convey a clear meaning and the title conveyed that the review would have an impact on health and well-being. The least important criteria were that the topic was newsworthy or prioritized in the healthcare system.
CONCLUSION: This project was able to identify priority Cochrane review topics for users of health care in 19 of the 50 areas of health care covered by The Cochrane Collaboration. Reviews addressing lifestyle and non-medical interventions were strongly represented in the prioritized review titles. These findings highlight the importance of developing readable, informative lay summaries to support evidence-based decision making by healthcare users.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  consumers in research; health consumer networking; lifestyle and non-medical interventions; prioritization of synthesized evidence topics

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21895902      PMCID: PMC5060687          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00723.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  17 in total

1.  Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer.

Authors:  D Tallon; J Chard; P Dieppe
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-06-10       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  What does involving consumers in research mean?

Authors:  C Williamson
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2001-12

3.  Consumer-professional partnership to improve research: the experience of the Cochrane Collaboration's Pregnancy and Childbirth Group.

Authors:  C Sakala; G Gyte; S Henderson; J P Neilson; D Horey
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.689

Review 4.  Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda.

Authors:  Jonathan Boote; Rosemary Telford; Cindy Cooper
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Presenting the results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a consumer audience: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Claire Glenton; Nancy Santesso; Sarah Rosenbaum; Elin Strømme Nilsen; Tamara Rader; Agustin Ciapponi; Helen Dilkes
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-07-19       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  The James Lind Alliance: patients and clinicians should jointly identify their priorities for clinical trials.

Authors:  Nick Partridge; John Scadding
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004 Nov 27-Dec 3       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Measuring patients' experiences and outcomes.

Authors:  Nick Black; Crispin Jenkinson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-02

8.  Health professionals, patients and chronic illness policy: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Laurann Yen; James Gillespie; Yun-Hee Jeon; Marjan Kljakovic; Jo Anne Brien; Stephen Jan; Elin Lehnbom; Carmen Pearce-Brown; Tim Usherwood
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Development and implementation of a science training course for breast cancer activists: Project LEAD (leadership, education and advocacy development).

Authors:  K Dickersin; L Braun; M Mead; R Millikan; A M Wu; J Pietenpol; S Troyan; B Anderson; F Visco
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Getting it right: why bother with patient-centred care?

Authors:  Adrian E Bauman; H John Fardy; Peter G Harris
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2003-09-01       Impact factor: 7.738

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Steps in the undertaking of a systematic review in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  Dario Sambunjak; Miljenko Franić
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  There are some big changes at Health Expectations.

Authors:  Jonathan Tritter
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  Coverage of mental health and substance misuse topics in the Cochrane review system.

Authors:  S Green-Hennessy
Journal:  Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 6.892

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.