Literature DB >> 9214251

How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making.

L A Bero1, A R Jadad.   

Abstract

Systematic reviews can be a very useful decision-making tool because they objectively summarize large amounts of information, identify gaps in medical research, and identify beneficial or harmful interventions. Consumers can use systematic reviews to help them make health care decisions. Policymakers can use systematic reviews to help them make decisions about what types of health care to provide. Despite the potential value of systematic reviews, little evidence of their direct impact on the decisions made by consumers and policymakers is available. We discuss strategies for optimizing the use of systematic reviews by increasing the awareness and identification of reviews, learning to critically evaluate the findings of reviews, and overcoming barriers to the incorporation of reviews into the decision-making process. In addition, the participation of consumers and policymakers in the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews can help to produce reviews that are relevant and understandable to target audiences. Because decisions that involve health care policies and issues are complex processes in which information (such as that provided by systematic reviews) plays only a part, strategies for increasing the use of systematic reviews should be evaluated for their usefulness in the decision-making process.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9214251     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-1-199707010-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  33 in total

Review 1.  Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions.

Authors:  M Petticrew
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-13

2.  Policy makers' perspectives on tobacco control advocates' roles in regulation development.

Authors:  T Montini; L A Bero
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 3.  Enhancing the evidence base for health impact assessment.

Authors:  J Mindell; A Boaz; M Joffe; S Curtis; M Birley
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Print media coverage of research on passive smoking.

Authors:  G E Kennedy; L A Bero
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research.

Authors:  J Doyle; E Waters; D Yach; D McQueen; A De Francisco; T Stewart; P Reddy; A M Gulmezoglu; G Galea; A Portela
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 6.  A systematic review of conflicting meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  Patrick Vavken; Ronald Dorotka
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-02-28       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis.

Authors:  Kaelan A Moat; John N Lavis; Julia Abelson
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.911

8.  The cycle of bias in health research: a framework and toolbox for critical appraisal training.

Authors:  Donna H Odierna; Susan R Forsyth; Jenny White; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.622

9.  Critical appraisal training increases understanding and confidence and enhances the use of evidence in diverse categories of learners.

Authors:  Donna H Odierna; Jenny White; Susan Forsyth; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Systematic reviews, systematic error and the acquisition of clinical knowledge.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-06-10       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.