Laure Perrier1, M Ryan Kealey2, Sharon E Straus3. 1. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Continuing Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a series of focus groups with primary care physicians to determine the optimal format of a shortened, focused systematic review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prototypes for two formats of a shortened systematic review were developed and presented to participants during focus group sessions. Focus groups were conducted with primary care physicians who were in full- or part-time practice. An iterative process was used so that the information learned from the first set of focus groups (Round 1) influenced the material presented to the second set of focus groups (Round 2). The focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed. RESULTS: Each of the two rounds of testing included three focus groups. A total of 32 physicians participated (Round 1:16 participants; Round 2:16 participants). Analysis of the transcripts from Round 1 identified three themes including ease of use, clarity, and implementation. Changes were made to the prototypes based on the results so that the revised prototypes could be presented and discussed in the second round of focus groups. After analysis of transcripts from Round 2, four themes were identified, including ease of use, clarity, brevity, and implementation. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians provided input on the refinement of two prototypes of a shortened systematic review for clinicians. Their feedback guided changes to the format, presentation, and layout of these prototypes in order to increase usability and uptake for end-users. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a series of focus groups with primary care physicians to determine the optimal format of a shortened, focused systematic review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prototypes for two formats of a shortened systematic review were developed and presented to participants during focus group sessions. Focus groups were conducted with primary care physicians who were in full- or part-time practice. An iterative process was used so that the information learned from the first set of focus groups (Round 1) influenced the material presented to the second set of focus groups (Round 2). The focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed. RESULTS: Each of the two rounds of testing included three focus groups. A total of 32 physicians participated (Round 1:16 participants; Round 2:16 participants). Analysis of the transcripts from Round 1 identified three themes including ease of use, clarity, and implementation. Changes were made to the prototypes based on the results so that the revised prototypes could be presented and discussed in the second round of focus groups. After analysis of transcripts from Round 2, four themes were identified, including ease of use, clarity, brevity, and implementation. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians provided input on the refinement of two prototypes of a shortened systematic review for clinicians. Their feedback guided changes to the format, presentation, and layout of these prototypes in order to increase usability and uptake for end-users. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
evidence-based practice; focus groups; qualitative research; review literature as topic
Authors: Laure Perrier; Nav Persaud; Anita Ko; Monika Kastner; Jeremy Grimshaw; K Ann McKibbon; Sharon E Straus Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Newton Opiyo; Sasha Shepperd; Nyokabi Musila; Elizabeth Allen; Rachel Nyamai; Atle Fretheim; Mike English Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Roberta Cardoso; Sonia M Thomas; Sanober Motiwala; Shannon Sullivan; Michael R Kealey; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Mathieu Ouimet; Michael P Hillmer; Laure Perrier; Sasha Shepperd; Sharon E Straus Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Jiantao Bian; Charlene Weir; Prasad Unni; Damian Borbolla; Thomas Reese; Yik-Ki Jacob Wan; Guilherme Del Fiol Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 5.428