Search

Background: While there has been widespread global acceptance of the importance of evidence-informed policy, many opportunities to inform health policy with research are missed, often because of a mismatch between when and where reliable evidence is needed, and when and where it is available. 'Living evidence' is an approach where systematic evidence syntheses (e.g. living reviews, living guidelines, living policy briefs, etc.) are continually updated to incorporate new relevant evidence as it becomes available. Living evidence approaches have the potential to overcome a major barrier to evidence-informed policy, making up-to-date systematic summaries of policy-relevant research available at any time that policy-makers need them. These approaches are likely to be particularly beneficial given increasing calls for policy that is responsive, and rapidly adaptive to changes in the policy context. We describe the opportunities presented by living evidence for evidence-informed policy-making and highlight areas for further exploration. Discussion: There are several elements of living approaches to evidence synthesis that might support increased and improved use of evidence to inform policy. Reviews are explicitly prioritised to be 'living' by partnerships between policy-makers and researchers based on relevance to decision-making, as well as uncertainty of existing evidence, and likelihood that new evidence will arise. The ongoing nature of the work means evidence synthesis teams can be dynamic and engage with policy-makers in a variety of ways over time; and synthesis topics, questions and methods can be adapted as policy interests or contextual factors shift. Policy-makers can sign-up to be notified when relevant new evidence is found, and can be confident that living syntheses are up-to-date and contain all research whenever they access them. The always up-to-date nature of living evidence syntheses means producers can rapidly demonstrate availability of relevant, reliable evidence when it is needed, addressing a frequently cited barrier to evidence-informed policymaking. Conclusions: While there are challenges to be overcome, living evidence provides opportunities to enable policy-makers to access up-to-date evidence whenever they need it and also enable researchers to respond to the issues of the day with up-to-date research; and update policy-makers on changes in the evidence base as they arise. It also provides an opportunity to build flexible partnerships between researchers and policy-makers to ensure that evidence syntheses reflect the changing needs of policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on rapid introduction of new treatments for mild COVID-19. Topics include treatment options for suitable patients with mild COVID-19 containing antivirals and monoclonal antibodies with the oral antivirals being most relevant for GPs; and symptomatic infection being lower for Omicron compared with Delta variants where effectiveness remaining high against hospitalisation and death.

Background: "Living guidelines" are guidelines which are continually kept up to date as new evidence emerges. Living guideline methods are evolving. The aim of this study was to determine how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken for the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.Methods: Members of the Living Stroke Guidelines Development Group were invited to complete an online survey. Participants nominated one or more recommendation topics from the Living Stroke Guidelines with which they had been involved and answered questions about that topic, assessing whether it met criteria for living evidence synthesis, and how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken and why. For each topic we also determined how many studies had been assessed and included, and whether recommendations had been changed.Results: Fifty-seven assessments were received from 33 respondents, covering half of the 88 guideline topic areas. Nearly all assessments (49, 86%) were that the continual updating process should be maintained. Only three assessments (5%) deemed that searches should be conducted monthly; 3-monthly (14, 25%), 6-monthly (13, 23%) and yearly (17, 30%) searches were far more frequently recommended. Rarely (9, 16%) were topics deemed to meet all three criteria for living review. The vast majority of assessments (45, 79%) deemed the topic a priority for decision-making. Nearly half indicated that there was uncertainty in the available evidence or that new evidence was likely to be available soon. Since 2017, all but four of the assessed topic areas have had additional studies included in the evidence summary. For eight topics, there have been changes in recommendations, and revisions are underway for an additional six topics. Clinical importance was the most common reason given for why continual evidence surveillance should be undertaken. Workload for reviewers was a concern, particularly for topics where there is a steady flow of publication of small trials.Conclusions: Our study found that participants felt that the vast majority of topics assessed in the Living Stroke Guidelines should be continually updated. However, only a fifth of topic areas were assessed as conclusively meeting all three criteria for living review, and the definition of "continual" differed widely. This work has informed decisions about search frequency for the Living Stroke Guidelines and form the basis of further research on methods for frequent updating of guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project. Methods: The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data. Results: An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified. Conclusions: In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global health crisis created by COVID-19 is providing valuable insights into the strengths of our health research system and, perhaps even more clearly, displaying its weaknesses. Much of what is being shown so plainly in the current context is not truly new. We are being reminded that health research systems are slow and noisy as well as that there is a desire for research to inform decision-making, that researchers are great collaborators, and that the walls we are so quick to erect between health research and health practice are unhelpful facades. It is our hope that the clarity with which these issues are being demonstrated by COVID-19 might provide the impetus to address these challenges and seize these opportunities to improve our health research system, for the benefit for communities facing COVID-19 now, and for the benefit of us all in facing the further health challenges that are sure to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Producing high-quality, relevant systematic reviews and keeping them up to date is challenging. Cochrane is a leading provider of systematic reviews in health. For Cochrane to continue to contribute to improvements in heath, Cochrane Reviews must be rigorous, reliable and up to date. We aimed to explore existing models of Cochrane Review production and emerging opportunities to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these processes. Methods: To inform discussions about how to best achieve this, we conducted 26 interviews and an online survey with 106 respondents. Results: Respondents highlighted the importance and challenge of creating reliable, timely systematic reviews. They described the challenges and opportunities presented by current production models, and they shared what they are doing to improve review production. They particularly highlighted significant challenges with increasing complexity of review methods; difficulty keeping authors on board and on track; and the length of time required to complete the process. Strong themes emerged about the roles of authors and Review Groups, the central actors in the review production process. The results suggest that improvements to Cochrane's systematic review production models could come from improving clarity of roles and expectations, ensuring continuity and consistency of input, enabling active management of the review process, centralising some review production steps; breaking reviews into smaller "chunks", and improving approaches to building capacity of and sharing information between authors and Review Groups. Respondents noted the important role new technologies have to play in enabling these improvements. Conclusions: The findings of this study will inform the development of new Cochrane Review production models and may provide valuable data for other systematic review producers as they consider how best to produce rigorous, reliable, up-to-date reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-informed policymaking is more likely if organisations have cultures that promote research use and invest in resources that facilitate staff engagement with research. Measures of organisations' research use culture and capacity are needed to assess current capacity, identify opportunities for improvement, and examine the impact of capacity-building interventions. The aim of the current study was to develop a comprehensive system to measure and score organisations' capacity to engage with and use research in policymaking, which we entitled ORACLe (Organisational Research Access, Culture, and Leadership).Method: We used a multifaceted approach to develop ORACLe. Firstly, we reviewed the available literature to identify key domains of organisational tools and systems that may facilitate research use by staff. We interviewed senior health policymakers to verify the relevance and applicability of these domains. This information was used to generate an interview schedule that focused on seven key domains of organisational capacity. The interview was pilot-tested within four Australian policy agencies. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was then undertaken using an expert sample to establish the relative importance of these domains. This data was used to produce a scoring system for ORACLe.Results: The ORACLe interview was developed, comprised of 23 questions addressing seven domains of organisational capacity and tools that support research use, including (1) documented processes for policymaking; (2) leadership training; (3) staff training; (4) research resources (e.g. database access); and systems to (5) generate new research, (6) undertake evaluations, and (7) strengthen relationships with researchers. From the DCE data, a conditional logit model was estimated to calculate total scores that took into account the relative importance of the seven domains. The model indicated that our expert sample placed the greatest importance on domains (2), (3) and (4).Conclusion: We utilised qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a system to assess and score organisations' capacity to engage with and apply research to policy. Our measure assesses a broad range of capacity domains and identifies the relative importance of these capacities. ORACLe data can be used by organisations keen to increase their use of evidence to identify areas for further development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent proliferation of strategies designed to increase the use of research in health policy (knowledge exchange) demands better application of contemporary conceptual understandings of how research shapes policy. Predictive models, or action frameworks , are needed to organise existing knowledge and enable a more systematic approach to the selection and testing of intervention strategies. Useful action frameworks need to meet four criteria: have a clearly articulated purpose; be informed by existing knowledge; provide an organising structure to build new knowledge; and be capable of guiding the development and testing of interventions. This paper describes the development of the SPIRIT Action Framework. A literature search and interviews with policy makers identified modifiable factors likely to influence the use of research in policy. An iterative process was used to combine these factors into a pragmatic tool which meets the four criteria. The SPIRIT Action Framework can guide conceptually-informed practical decisions in the selection and testing of interventions to increase the use of research in policy. The SPIRIT Action Framework hypothesises that a catalyst is required for the use of research, the response to which is determined by the capacity of the organisation to engage with research. Where there is sufficient capacity, a series of research engagement actions might occur that facilitate research use . These hypotheses are being tested in ongoing empirical work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of definitions is an integral part of the research process but is often poorly described. This paper details the iterative development of five definitions: Policy, Health policy-maker, Health policy agency, Policy documents, and Research findings. We describe the challenges of developing definitions in a large multidisciplinary team and the important methodological repercussions. We identify four factors that were most helpful in this process: (1) An emphasis on fit-for-purpose functionality, (2) Consultation with in-context experts, (3) Our willingness to amend terms as well as definitions, and to revisit some methods and goals as a consequence, and (4) Agreement that we would satisfice: accept ‘good enough’ solutions rather than struggle for optimality and consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Health Research and Policy Systems (HARPS) has gone from strength to strength since it was established in 2003. As new Editors-in-Chief, we look forward to a bright future for HARPS, and we would like to start a conversation with you, HARPS readers, authors, editors and others, about how HARPS can best support ongoing progress and debate on evidence-informed health research policy and systems, particularly in developing countries. As a starting point for discussion, we would like to highlight three areas that we are passionate about, namely supporting an integrated community of researchers and policy-makers; building a focus on how health research and policy systems can support achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals; and strengthening our commitment to communicating and disseminating the work published in HARPS. We invite you to contribute your thoughts, ideas and suggestions on the future of HARPS, as we work together towards an evidence-informed future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Julian Elliott and colleagues discuss how the current inability to keep systematic reviews up-to-date hampers the translation of knowledge into action. They propose living systematic reviews as a contribution to evidence synthesis to enhance the accuracy and utility of health evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives The South-East Asia Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries (SEA-ORCHID) project aimed to improve health outcomes for mothers and babies in nine hospitals in South-East Asia by supporting evidence-based perinatal health care. In this research, we aimed to identify and explore the factors that may have acted as barriers to or enablers of evidence-based practice change at each of the hospitals. Methods During the final 6 months of the intervention phase of the project, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with 179 nurses, midwives and doctors from the maternal and neonatal departments at each of the nine participating South-East Asian hospitals. Results The interviews identified several factors that participants believed had a substantial impact on the effectiveness of the SEA-ORCHID intervention. These included knowledge, skills, hierarchy, multidisciplinarity and leadership, beliefs about consequences, resources, and the nature of the behaviours. The success of the SEA-ORCHID intervention in improving practice may reflect the extent to which tailored strategies were effective in overcoming these barriers. Conclusion Effective interventions to align practice with evidence rely on identifying and addressing barriers to practice change. The barriers identified in this study may be useful for those designing similar clinical practice improvement projects, as well as for continued efforts to improve practice in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rates of maternal and perinatal mortality remain high in developing countries despite the existence of effective interventions. Efforts to strengthen evidence-based approaches to improve health in these settings are partly hindered by restricted access to the best available evidence, limited training in evidence-based practice and concerns about the relevance of existing evidence. South East Asia - Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries (SEA-ORCHID) was a five-year project that aimed to determine whether a multifaceted intervention designed to strengthen the capacity for research synthesis, evidence-based care and knowledge implementation improved clinical practice and led to better health outcomes for mothers and babies. This paper describes the development and design of the SEA-ORCHID intervention plan using a logical framework approach. Methods: SEA-ORCHID used a before-and-after design to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted tailored intervention at nine sites across Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia, supported by three centres in Australia. We used a logical framework approach to systematically prepare and summarise the project plan in a clear and logical way. The development and design of the SEA-ORCHID project was based around the three components of a logical framework (problem analysis, project plan and evaluation strategy). Results: The SEA-ORCHID logical framework defined the project's goal and purpose (To improve the health of mothers and babies in South East Asia and To improve clinical practice in reproductive health in South East Asia), and outlined a series of project objectives and activities designed to achieve these. The logical framework also established outcome and process measures appropriate to each level of the project plan, and guided project work in each of the participating countries and hospitals. Conclusions: Development of a logical framework in the SEA-ORCHID project enabled a reasoned, logical approach to the project design that ensured the project activities would achieve the desired outcomes and that the evaluation plan would assess both the process and outcome of the project. The logical framework was also valuable over the course of the project to facilitate communication, assess progress and build a shared understanding of the project activities, purpose and goal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is important that healthcare provided in crisis settings is based on the best available research evidence. We reviewed guidelines for child and perinatal health care in crisis situations to determine whether they were based on research evidence, whether Cochrane systematic reviews were available in the clinical areas addressed by these guidelines and whether summaries of these reviews were provided in Evidence Aid.Methods: Broad internet searches were undertaken to identify relevant guidelines. Guidelines were appraised using AGREE and the clinical areas that were relevant to perinatal or child health were extracted. We searched The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify potentially relevant reviews. For each review we determined how many trials were included, and how many were conducted in resource-limited settings.Results: Six guidelines met selection criteria. None of the included guidelines were clearly based on research evidence. 198 Cochrane reviews were potentially relevant to the guidelines. These reviews predominantly addressed nutrient supplementation, breastfeeding, malaria, maternal hypertension, premature labour and prevention of HIV transmission. Most reviews included studies from developing settings. However for large portions of the guidelines, particularly health services delivery, there were no relevant reviews. Only 18 (9.1%) reviews have summaries in Evidence Aid.Conclusions: We did not identify any evidence-based guidelines for perinatal and child health care in disaster settings. We found many Cochrane reviews that could contribute to the evidence-base supporting future guidelines. However there are important issues to be addressed in terms of the relevance of the available reviews and increasing the number of reviews addressing health care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are commonly used to support practitioners to improve practice. However many studies have raised concerns about guideline quality. The reasons why guidelines are not developed following the established development methods are not clear.The SEA-ORCHID project aims to increase the generation and use of locally relevant research and improve clinical practice in maternal and perinatal care in four countries in South East Asia. Baseline data highlighted that development of evidence-based CPGs according to recommended processes was very rare in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals. The project investigators suggested that there were aspects of the recommended development process that made it very difficult in the participating hospitals.We therefore aimed to explore the experience of guideline development and particularly the enablers of and barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in the nine hospitals in South East Asia participating in the SEA-ORCHID project, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings.Methods: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors) from the maternal and neonatal services at each of the nine participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken.Results: Seventy-five individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants clearly valued evidence-based guidelines. However they also identified several major barriers to guideline development including time, lack of awareness of process, difficulties searching for evidence and arranging guideline development group meetings, issues with achieving multi-disciplinarity and consumer involvement. They also highlighted the central importance of keeping guidelines up-to-date.Conclusion: Healthcare providers in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals face a series of barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines. At present, in many hospitals, several of these barriers are insurmountable, and as a result, rigorous, evidence-based guidelines are not being developed. Given the acknowledged benefits of evidence-based guidelines, perhaps a new approach to supporting their development in these contexts is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recognising the potential of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to improve practice, one of the strategies of the SEA-ORCHID project was to facilitate the development of evidence-based CPGs, and to support clinical staff in each of the four countries to build their skills in development of CPGs in the nine participating hospitals in Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia. This study was undertaken to investigate the impact of the SEA-ORCHID project on development of evidence-based CPGs.Methods: Data on the CPGs available to support maternal and perinatal healthcare were collected by SEA-ORCHID team members at each hospital before and after the intervention period of the project.Results: There were only a few evidence-based CPGs available in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals before the intervention period. After the intervention period, in the SEA-ORCHID hospitals in Malaysia and Indonesia there was no change in evidence-based CPG development activity in maternal and perinatal care. In Thailand and The Philippines there was a small increase in evidence-based CPG development activity in maternal and perinatal care.Conclusion: Despite the wide range of interventions to support evidence-based CPG development implemented in the hospitals participating in the SEA-ORCHID, very little change was seen in the development of evidence-based CPGs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. ‘Living guidelines’ approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage. Results: Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020. Conclusions: This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation of evidence-based care remains a key challenge in clinical practice. Determining "what" to implement can guide implementation efforts. This paper describes a process developed to identify priority recommendations from clinical guidelines for implementation, incorporating the perspectives of both consumers and health professionals. A case study is presented where the process was used to prioritize recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines.Methods: The process was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers following consultation with experts in the field of implementation and stroke care in Australia. Use of the process incorporated surveys and facilitated workshops. Survey data were analysed descriptively; responses to ranking exercises were analysed via a graph theory-based voting system.Results: The four-step process to identify high-priority recommendations for implementation comprised the following: (1) identifying key implementation criteria, which included (a) reliability of the evidence underpinning the recommendation, (b) capacity to measure change in practice, (c) a recommendation-practice gap, (d) clinical importance and (e) feasibility of making the recommended changes; (2) shortlisting recommendations; (3) ranking shortlisted recommendations and (4) reaching consensus on top priorities. The process was applied to the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines between February 2019 and February 2020. Seventy-five health professionals and 16 consumers participated. Use of the process was feasible. Three recommendations were identified as priorities for implementation from over 400 recommendations.Conclusion: It is possible to implement a robust process which involves consumers, clinicians and researchers to systematically prioritize guideline recommendations for implementation. The process is generalizable and could be applied in clinical areas other than stroke and in different geographical regions to identify implementation priorities. The identification of three clear priority recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines will directly inform the development and delivery of national implementation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Objectives Methods Results Conclusion Continual evidence surveillance is an integral feature of living guidelines. The Australian Stroke Guidelines include recommendations on 100 clinical topics and have been ‘living’ since 2018.To describe the approach for establishing and evaluating an evidence surveillance system for the living Australian Stroke Guidelines.We developed a pragmatic surveillance system based on an analysis of the searches for the 2017 Stroke Guidelines and evaluated its reliability by assessing the potential impact on guideline recommendations. Search retrieval and screening workload are monitored monthly, together with the frequency of changes to the guideline recommendations.Evidence surveillance was guided by practical considerations of efficiency and sustainability. A single PubMed search covering all guideline topics, limited to systematic reviews and randomised trials, is run monthly. The search retrieves about 400 records a month of which a sixth are triaged to the guideline panels for further consideration. Evaluations with Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register demonstrated the robustness of adopting this more restrictive approach. Collaborating with the guideline team in designing, implementing and evaluating the surveillance is essential for optimising the approach.Monthly evidence surveillance for a large living guideline is feasible and sustainable when applying a pragmatic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Capacity building strategies are widely used to increase the use of research in policy development. However, a lack of well-validated measures for policy contexts has hampered efforts to identify priorities for capacity building and to evaluate the impact of strategies. We aimed to address this gap by developing SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research), a self-report measure of individual policymakers' capacity to engage with and use research.Methods: We used the SPIRIT Action Framework to identify pertinent domains and guide development of items for measuring each domain. Scales covered (1) individual capacity to use research (confidence in using research, value placed on research, individual perceptions of the value their organisation places on research, supporting tools and systems), (2) actions taken to engage with research and researchers, and (3) use of research to inform policy (extent and type of research use). A sample of policymakers engaged in health policy development provided data to examine scale reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) and validity (relation to measures of similar concepts, relation to a measure of intention to use research, internal structure of the individual capacity scales).Results: Response rates were 55% (150/272 people, 12 agencies) for the validity and internal consistency analyses, and 54% (57/105 people, 9 agencies) for test-retest reliability. The individual capacity scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (alpha coefficients > 0.7, all four scales) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients > 0.7 for three scales and 0.59 for fourth scale). Scores on individual capacity scales converged as predicted with measures of similar concepts (moderate correlations of > 0.4), and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence that the scales measured related but distinct concepts. Items in each of these four scales related as predicted to concepts in the measurement model derived from the SPIRIT Action Framework. Evidence about the reliability and validity of the research engagement actions and research use scales was equivocal.Conclusions: Initial testing of SEER suggests that the four individual capacity scales may be used in policy settings to examine current capacity and identify areas for capacity building. The relation between capacity, research engagement actions and research use requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 led to a rapid acceleration in the number of systematic reviews. Readers need to know how up to date evidence is when selecting reviews to inform decisions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate how easily the currency of COVID-19 systematic reviews published early in the pandemic could be determined and how up to date these reviews were at the time of publication. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to COVID-19 added to PubMed in July 2020 and January 2021, including any that were first published as preprints. We extracted data on the date of search, number of included studies, and date first published online. For the search date, we noted the format of the date and where in the review this was reported. A sample of non-COVID-19 systematic reviews from November 2020 served as a comparator. Results: We identified 246 systematic reviews on COVID-19. In the abstract of these reviews, just over half (57%) reported the search date (day/month/year or month/year) while 43% failed to report any date. When the full text was considered, the search date was missing from 6% of reviews. The median time from last search to publication online was 91 days (IQR 63–130). Time from search to publication was similar for the subset of 15 rapid or living reviews (92 days) but shorter for the 29 reviews published as preprints (37 days). The median number of studies or publications included per review was 23 (IQR 12–40). In the sample of 290 non-COVID SRs, around two-thirds (65%) reported the search date while a third (34%) did not include any date in the abstract. The median time from search to publication online was 253 days (IQR 153–381) and each review included a median of 12 studies (IQR 8–21). Conclusions: Despite the context of the pandemic and the need to easily ascertain the currency of systematic reviews, reporting of the search date information for COVID-19 reviews was inadequate. Adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the transparency and usefulness of systematic reviews to users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient safety is a fundamental component of good quality health care. Checklists have been proposed as a method of improving patient safety. This systematic review, asked "In acute hospital settings, would the use of safety checklists applied by medical care teams, compared to not using checklists, improve patient safety?"Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials published in English before September 2009. Studies were selected and appraised by two reviewers independently in consultation with colleagues, using inclusion, exclusion and appraisal criteria established a priori.Results: Nine cohort studies with historical controls studies from four hospital care settings were included-intensive care unit, emergency department, surgery, and acute care. The studies used a variety of designs of safety checklists, and implemented them in different ways, however most incorporated an educational component to teach the staff how to use the checklist. The studies assessed outcomes occurring a few weeks to a maximum of 12 months post-implementation, and these outcomes were diverse.The studies were generally of low to moderate quality and of low levels of evidence, with all but one of the studies containing a high risk of bias.The results of these studies suggest some improvements in patient safety arising from use of safety checklists, but these were not consistent across all studies or for all outcomes. Some studies showed no difference in outcomes between checklist use and standard care without a checklist. Due to the variations in setting, checklist design, educational training given, and outcomes measured, it was unfeasible to accurately summarise any trends across all studies.Conclusions: The included studies suggest some benefits of using safety checklists to improve protocol adherence and patient safety, but due to the risk of bias in these studies, their results should be interpreted with caution. More high quality and studies, are needed to enable confident conclusions about the effectiveness of safety checklists in acute hospital settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an evidence-based medicine (EBM) teaching activity which demonstrates the concept of concealment of allocation. This exercise requires the use of several envelopes and lollipops. The students are asked how the results came about and how these would affect a clinical trial.

Presents a letter to the editor in response to the article "The evidence base: rock of certainty or shifting sands?" by J. Dewhurst in the April 17, 2004 issue.

It is essential that health policies are based on the best available evidence including that from research, to ensure their effectiveness in terms of both cost and health outcomes for the wider community. The present study describes the development of SAGE (Staff Assessment of enGagement with Evidence), a measure that combines an interview and document analysis to evaluate how policymakers engaged with research (i.e., how research was searched for, appraised, or generated, and whether interactions with researchers occurred), how policymakers used research (i.e., conceptually, instrumentally, tactically, or imposed), and what barriers impacted upon the use of research, in the development of a specific policy product. A multifaceted strategy was used to develop the SAGE interview and the accompanying interview-scoring tool. These included consultations with experts in health policy and research, review and analysis of the literature on evidence-informed policymaking and previous measures of research use, qualitative analysis of interviews with policymakers, and pilot-testing with senior policymakers. These steps led to the development of a comprehensive interview and scoring tool that captures and evaluates a broad range of key actions policymakers perform when searching for, appraising, generating, and using research to inform a specific policy product. Policy organizations can use SAGE to not only provide a thorough evaluation of their current level of research engagement and use, but to help shed light on programs to improve their research use capacity, and evaluate the success of these programs in improving the development of evidence-informed policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. The World Health Organization is developing new recommendations focusing on the management of NCDs for pregnant, intrapartum, and postnatal women. Thus, to support the development of new guidelines and recommendations, we aimed to determine the availability, focus, and scope of recommendations of current guidelines for the management of NCDs during pregnancy, intrapartum, and postnatal period. Methods: PubMed, Global Index Medicus, TRIP, and Guideline International Network databases were searched on 31 May 2021, to identify any NCD-related guidelines published between 2011 and 2021 with no language or country restrictions. Websites of 165 professional organizations were also searched. Characteristics of included guidelines were analyzed, and recommendations were extracted from guidelines of five high-priority NCD conditions (diabetes, chronic hypertension, respiratory conditions, hemoglobinopathies and sickle cell disease, and mental and substance use disorders). Results: From 6026 citations and 165 websites, 405 guidelines were included of which 132 (33%) were pregnancy-specific and 285 (88%) were developed in high-income countries. Among pregnancy-specific guidelines, the most common conditions for which recommendations were provided were gestational diabetes, circulatory diseases, thyroid disorders, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For the five high-priority conditions, 47 guidelines were identified which provided 1834 recommendations, largely focused on antenatal care interventions (62%) such as early detection, screening tools, pharmacological treatment, and lifestyle education. Postnatal recommendations largely covered postnatal clinical assessments, lifestyle education, and breastfeeding. Health system recommendations largely covered multidisciplinary care teams and strengthening referral pathways. Conclusions: This study provides a robust assessment of currently available guidelines and mapping of recommendations on NCD management within maternal health services, which will inform the scope of the World Health Organization's future guideline development activities. This study identified a need to develop guidelines that consider NCDs holistically, with an integrated approach to antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care, and that are relevant for resource-limited contexts. Any such guidelines should consider what interventions are most essential to improving outcomes for women with NCDs and their newborns, and how variations in quality of NCD-related care can be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2019, WHO prioritized updating recommendations relating to three labour induction topics: labour induction at or beyond term, mechanical methods for labour induction, and outpatient labour induction. As part of this process, we aimed to review the evidence addressing factors beyond clinical effectiveness (values, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, and economic and feasibility considerations) to inform WHO Guideline Development Group decision-making using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework, and to reflect on how methods for identifying, synthesizing and integrating this evidence could be improved.Methods: We adapted the framework to consider the key criteria and sub-criteria relevant to our intervention. We searched for qualitative and other evidence across a variety of sources and mapped the eligible evidence to country income setting and perspective. Eligibility assessment and quality appraisal of qualitative evidence syntheses was undertaken using a two-step process informed by the ENTREQ statement. We adopted an iterative approach to interpret the evidence and provided both summary and detailed findings to the decision-makers. We also undertook a review to reflect on opportunities to improve the process of applying the framework and identifying the evidence.Results: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework allowed us to explore health rights and equity in a systematic and transparent way. We identified a lack of qualitative and other evidence from low- and middle-income settings and in populations that are most impacted by structural inequities or traditionally excluded from research. Our process review highlighted opportunities for future improvement, including adopting more systematic evidence mapping methods and working with social science researchers to strengthen theoretical understanding, methods and interpretation of the evidence.Conclusions: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to inform decision-making in a global guideline for induction of labour, we identified both challenges and opportunities relating to the lack of evidence in populations and settings of need and interest; the theoretical approach informing the development and application of WHO-INTEGRATE; and interpretation of the evidence. We hope these insights will be useful for primary researchers as well as the evidence synthesis and health decision-making communities, and ultimately contribute to a reduction in health inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. The World Health Organization is developing new recommendations focusing on the management of NCDs for pregnant, intrapartum, and postnatal women. Thus, to support the development of new guidelines and recommendations, we aimed to determine the availability, focus, and scope of recommendations of current guidelines for the management of NCDs during pregnancy, intrapartum, and postnatal period.Methods: PubMed, Global Index Medicus, TRIP, and Guideline International Network databases were searched on 31 May 2021, to identify any NCD-related guidelines published between 2011 and 2021 with no language or country restrictions. Websites of 165 professional organizations were also searched. Characteristics of included guidelines were analyzed, and recommendations were extracted from guidelines of five high-priority NCD conditions (diabetes, chronic hypertension, respiratory conditions, hemoglobinopathies and sickle cell disease, and mental and substance use disorders).Results: From 6026 citations and 165 websites, 405 guidelines were included of which 132 (33%) were pregnancy-specific and 285 (88%) were developed in high-income countries. Among pregnancy-specific guidelines, the most common conditions for which recommendations were provided were gestational diabetes, circulatory diseases, thyroid disorders, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For the five high-priority conditions, 47 guidelines were identified which provided 1834 recommendations, largely focused on antenatal care interventions (62%) such as early detection, screening tools, pharmacological treatment, and lifestyle education. Postnatal recommendations largely covered postnatal clinical assessments, lifestyle education, and breastfeeding. Health system recommendations largely covered multidisciplinary care teams and strengthening referral pathways.Conclusions: This study provides a robust assessment of currently available guidelines and mapping of recommendations on NCD management within maternal health services, which will inform the scope of the World Health Organization's future guideline development activities. This study identified a need to develop guidelines that consider NCDs holistically, with an integrated approach to antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care, and that are relevant for resource-limited contexts. Any such guidelines should consider what interventions are most essential to improving outcomes for women with NCDs and their newborns, and how variations in quality of NCD-related care can be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The importance of utilising the best available research evidence in the development of health policies, services, and programs is increasingly recognised, yet few standardised systems for quantifying policymakers' research use are available. We developed a comprehensive measurement and scoring tool that assesses four domains of research use (i.e. instrumental, conceptual, tactical, and imposed). The scoring tool breaks down each domain into its key subactions like a checklist. Our aim was to develop a tool that assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its relative importance to undertaking evidence-informed health policymaking. In order to establish the relative importance of each research use subaction and generate this scoring system, we conducted conjoint analysis with a sample of knowledge translation experts. Methods: Fifty-four experts were recruited to undertake four choice surveys. Respondents were shown combinations of research use subactions called profiles, and rated on a 1 to 9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1–3), moderate (4–6), or extensive (7–9) example of research use. Generalised Estimating Equations were used to analyse respondents' choice data, which calculated a utility coefficient for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicated that a subaction was particularly influential in guiding experts' ratings of extensive research use. Results: Utility coefficients were calculated for each subaction, which became the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of each research use domain: using research to directly influence the core of the policy decision; using research to inform alternative perspectives to deal with the policy issue; using research to persuade targeted stakeholders to support a predetermined decision; and using research because it was a mandated requirement by the policymaker's organisation. Conclusions: We have generated an empirically derived and context-sensitive means of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers used research to inform the development of a policy document. The scoring system can be used by organisations to not only quantify the extent of their research use, but also to provide them with insights into potential strategies to improve subsequent research use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective use of research to inform policymaking can be strengthened by policymakers undertaking various research engagement actions (e.g., accessing, appraising, and applying research). Consequently, we developed a thorough measurement and scoring tool to assess whether and how policymakers undertook research engagement actions in the development of a policy document. This scoring tool breaks down each research engagement action into its key 'subactions' like a checklist. The primary aim was to develop the scoring tool further so that it assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its effectiveness for achieving evidence-informed policymaking. To establish the relative effectiveness of these subactions, we conducted a conjoint analysis, which was used to elicit the opinions and preferences of knowledge translation experts. Method: Fifty-four knowledge translation experts were recruited to undertake six choice surveys. Respondents were exposed to combinations of research engagement subactions called 'profiles', and rated on a 1-9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1-3), moderate (4-6), or extensive (7-9) example of each research engagement action. Generalised estimating equations were used to analyse respondents' choice data, where a utility coefficient was calculated for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicates that a subaction was influential in guiding experts' ratings of extensive engagement with research. Results: The calculated utilities were used as the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of engaging with research: searching academic literature databases, obtaining systematic reviews and peer-reviewed research, appraising relevance by verifying its applicability to the policy context, appraising quality by evaluating the validity of the method and conclusions, engaging in thorough collaborations with researchers, and undertaking formal research projects to inform the policy in question. Conclusions: We have generated an empirically-derived and context-sensitive method of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers engaged with research to inform policy development. The scoring system can be used by organisations to quantify staff research engagement actions and thus provide them with insights into what types of training, systems, and tools might improve their staff's research use capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early diagnosis and prompt antibiotic treatment are crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality of early-onset sepsis (EOS) in neonates. However, this strategy remains challenging due to non-specific clinical findings and limited facilities. Inappropriate antibiotics use is associated with ineffective therapy and adverse outcomes. This study aims to determine the characteristics of EOS and use of antibiotics in the neonatal-intensive care units (NICUs) in Indonesia, informing efforts to drive improvements in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of EOS.Methods: A descriptive study was conducted based on pre-intervention data of the South East Asia-Using Research for Change in Hospital-acquired Infection in Neonates project. Our study population consisted of neonates admitted within 72 h of life to the three participating NICUs. Neonates who presented with three or more clinical signs or laboratory results consistent with sepsis and who received antibiotics for 5 consecutive days were considered to have EOS. Culture-proven EOS was defined as positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture. Type and duration of antibiotics used were also documented.Results: Of 2,509 neonates, 242 cases were suspected of having EOS (9.6%) with culture-proven sepsis in 83 cases (5.0% of neonatal admissions in hospitals with culture facilities). The causative organisms were mostly gram-negative bacteria (85/94; 90.4%). Ampicillin / amoxicillin and amikacin were the most frequently prescribed antibiotics in hospitals with culture facilities, while a third-generation cephalosporin was mostly administered in hospital without culture facilities. The median durations of antibiotic therapy were 19 and 9 days in culture-proven and culture-negative EOS groups, respectively.Conclusions: The overall incidence of EOS and culture-proven EOS was high in Indonesia, with diverse and prolonged use of antibiotics. Prospective antibiotic surveillance and stewardship interventions are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The written radiology report is the dominant method by which radiologists communicate the results of diagnostic and interventional imaging procedures. It has an important impact on decisions about further investigation and management. Its form and content can be influential in reducing harm to patients and mitigating risk for practitioners but varies markedly with little standardisation in practice. Until now, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists has not had a guideline for the written report. International guidelines on this subject are not evidence based and lack description of development methods. The current guideline seeks to improve the quality of the written report by providing evidence-based recommendations for good practice. The following attributes of the report are addressed by recommendations: Content Clinical information available to the radiologist at the time the report was created, Technical details of the procedure, Examination quality and limitations, Findings (both normal and abnormal), Comparison with previous studies, Pathophysiological diagnosis, Differential diagnoses, Clinical correlation and/or answer to the clinical question, Recommendations, particularly for further imaging and other investigations, Conclusion/opinion/impression, , Format Length, Format, Language Confidence and certainty, Clarity, Readability, , Accuracy, Communication of discrepancies between an original verbal or written report and the final report, Proofreading/editing of own and trainee reports, [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence mapping describes the quantity, design and characteristics of research in broad topic areas, in contrast to systematic reviews, which usually address narrowly-focused research questions. The breadth of evidence mapping helps to identify evidence gaps, and may guide future research efforts. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative was established in 2007 to create evidence maps providing an overview of existing research in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). Methods: The GEM evidence mapping method involved three core tasks: 1. Setting the boundaries and context of the map: Definitions for the fields of TBI and SCI were clarified, the prehospital, acute inhospital and rehabilitation phases of care were delineated and relevant stakeholders (patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and policymakers) who could contribute to the mapping were identified. Researchable clinical questions were developed through consultation with key stakeholders and a broad literature search. 2. Searching for and selection of relevant studies: Evidence search and selection involved development of specific search strategies, development of inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching of relevant databases and independent screening and selection by two researchers. 3. Reporting on yield and study characteristics: Data extraction was performed at two levels - 'interventions and study design' and 'detailed study characteristics'. The evidence map and commentary reflected the depth of data extraction. Results: One hundred and twenty-nine researchable clinical questions in TBI and SCI were identified. These questions were then prioritised into high (n = 60) and low (n = 69) importance by the stakeholders involved in question development. Since 2007, 58 263 abstracts have been screened, 3 731 full text articles have been reviewed and 1 644 relevant neurotrauma publications have been mapped, covering fifty-three high priority questions. Conclusions: GEM Initiative evidence maps have a broad range of potential end-users including funding agencies, researchers and clinicians. Evidence mapping is at least as resource-intensive as systematic reviewing. The GEM Initiative has made advancements in evidence mapping, most notably in the area of question development and prioritisation. Evidence mapping complements other review methods for describing existing research, informing future research efforts, and addressing evidence gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The increasingly rapid rate of evidence publication has made it difficult for evidence synthesis—systematic reviews and health guidelines—to be continually kept up to date. One proposed solution for this is the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. Guideline developers are key gatekeepers in the acceptance and use of evidence, and therefore, their opinions on the potential use of automation are crucial. Methods: The objective of this study was to analyze the attitudes of guideline developers towards the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. The Diffusion of Innovations framework was chosen as an initial analytical framework because it encapsulates some of the core issues which are thought to affect the adoption of new innovations in practice. This well-established theory posits five dimensions which affect the adoption of novel technologies: Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity, Trialability, and Observability. Eighteen interviews were conducted with individuals who were currently working, or had previously worked, in guideline development. After transcription, a multiphase mixed deductive and grounded approach was used to analyze the data. First, transcripts were coded with a deductive approach using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation as the top-level themes. Second, sub-themes within the framework were identified using a grounded approach. Results: Participants were consistently most concerned with the extent to which an innovation is in line with current values and practices (i.e., Compatibility in the Diffusion of Innovations framework). Participants were also concerned with Relative Advantage and Observability, which were discussed in approximately equal amounts. For the latter, participants expressed a desire for transparency in the methodology of automation software. Participants were noticeably less interested in Complexity and Trialability, which were discussed infrequently. These results were reasonably consistent across all participants. Conclusions: If machine learning and other automation technologies are to be used more widely and to their full potential in systematic reviews and guideline development, it is crucial to ensure new technologies are in line with current values and practice. It will also be important to maximize the transparency of the methods of these technologies to address the concerns of guideline developers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The increasingly rapid rate of evidence publication has made it difficult for evidence synthesis—systematic reviews and health guidelines—to be continually kept up to date. One proposed solution for this is the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. Guideline developers are key gatekeepers in the acceptance and use of evidence, and therefore, their opinions on the potential use of automation are crucial. Methods: The objective of this study was to analyze the attitudes of guideline developers towards the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. The Diffusion of Innovations framework was chosen as an initial analytical framework because it encapsulates some of the core issues which are thought to affect the adoption of new innovations in practice. This well-established theory posits five dimensions which affect the adoption of novel technologies: Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity, Trialability, and Observability. Eighteen interviews were conducted with individuals who were currently working, or had previously worked, in guideline development. After transcription, a multiphase mixed deductive and grounded approach was used to analyze the data. First, transcripts were coded with a deductive approach using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation as the top-level themes. Second, sub-themes within the framework were identified using a grounded approach. Results: Participants were consistently most concerned with the extent to which an innovation is in line with current values and practices (i.e., Compatibility in the Diffusion of Innovations framework). Participants were also concerned with Relative Advantage and Observability, which were discussed in approximately equal amounts. For the latter, participants expressed a desire for transparency in the methodology of automation software. Participants were noticeably less interested in Complexity and Trialability, which were discussed infrequently. These results were reasonably consistent across all participants. Conclusions: If machine learning and other automation technologies are to be used more widely and to their full potential in systematic reviews and guideline development, it is crucial to ensure new technologies are in line with current values and practice. It will also be important to maximize the transparency of the methods of these technologies to address the concerns of guideline developers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Living systematic reviews (LSRs) offer an approach to keeping high-quality evidence synthesis continually up to date, so the most recent, relevant and reliable evidence can be used to inform policy and practice, resulting in improved quality of care and patient health outcomes. However, they require modifications to authoring and editorial processes and pose technical and publishing challenges. Several teams within Cochrane and the international Living Evidence Network have been piloting living systematic reviews. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation with participants involved in six LSRs (three Cochrane and three non-Cochrane). Up to three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 participants involved with one or more of the pilot LSRs. Interviews explored participants' experiences contributing to the LSR, barriers and facilitators to their conduct and opportunities for future development. Pilot team members also completed monthly surveys capturing time for key tasks and the number of citations screened for each review. Results: Across the pilot LSRs, search frequency was monthly to three-monthly, with some using tools such as machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to screen searches. Varied approaches were used to communicate updates to readers. The number of citations screened varied widely between the reviews, from three to 300 citations per month. The amount of time spent per month by the author team on each review also varied from 5 min to 32 h. Participants were enthusiastic to be involved in the LSR pilot. They highlighted the importance of a motivated and well-organised team; the value of technology enablers to improve workflow efficiencies; the need to establish reliable and efficient processes to sustain living reviews; and the potential for saving time and effort in the long run. Participants highlighted challenges with the current publication processes, managing ongoing workload and the lack of resources to support LSRs in the long term. Conclusions: Findings to date support feasibility and acceptability of LSR production. There are challenges that need to be addressed for living systematic reviews to be sustainable and have maximum value. The findings from this study will be used in discussions with the Cochrane community, key decision makers and people more broadly concerned with LSRs to identify and develop priorities for scale-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid reviews are increasingly being used to help policy makers access research in short time frames. A clear articulation of the review's purpose, questions, scope, methods and reporting format is thought to improve the quality and generalisability of review findings. The aim of the study is to explore the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in improving the perceived clarity of rapid review proposals from the perspective of potential reviewers. To conduct the study, we drew on the Evidence Check program, where policy makers draft a review proposal (a pre knowledge brokering proposal) and have a 1-hour session with a knowledge broker, who re-drafts the proposal based on the discussion (a post knowledge brokering proposal). Methods: We asked 30 reviewers who had previously undertaken Evidence Check reviews to examine the quality of 60 pre and 60 post knowledge brokering proposals. Reviewers were blind to whether the review proposals they received were pre or post knowledge brokering. Using a six-point Likert scale, reviewers scored six questions examining clarity of information about the review's purpose, questions, scope, method and format and reviewers' confidence that they could meet policy makers' needs. Each reviewer was allocated two pre and two post knowledge brokering proposals, randomly ordered, from the 60 reviews, ensuring no reviewer received a pre and post knowledge brokering proposal from the same review. Results: The results showed that knowledge brokering significantly improved the scores for all six questions addressing the perceived clarity of the review proposal and confidence in meeting policy makers' needs; with average changes of 0.68 to 1.23 from pre to post across the six domains. Conclusions: This study found that knowledge brokering increased the perceived clarity of information provided in Evidence Check rapid review proposals and the confidence of reviewers that they could meet policy makers' needs. Further research is needed to identify how the knowledge brokering process achieves these improvements and to test the applicability of the findings in other rapid review programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical practice guidelines are essential for driving evidence-based clinical care to patients. In an era of ever-increasing research evidence, keeping guidelines up to date is a challenging and resource-intensive process. Advances in technological platforms provide opportunities to develop new models of guideline development that will allow for continuous, rapid updates to recommendations as new evidence emerges. As Australia and other countries begin to develop these models, we have an opportunity to work more closely together to ensure the most efficient use of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective use of research to inform policymaking can be strengthened by policymakers undertaking various research engagement actions (e.g., accessing, appraising, and applying research). Consequently, we developed a thorough measurement and scoring tool to assess whether and how policymakers undertook research engagement actions in the development of a policy document. This scoring tool breaks down each research engagement action into its key 'subactions' like a checklist. The primary aim was to develop the scoring tool further so that it assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its effectiveness for achieving evidence-informed policymaking. To establish the relative effectiveness of these subactions, we conducted a conjoint analysis, which was used to elicit the opinions and preferences of knowledge translation experts.Method: Fifty-four knowledge translation experts were recruited to undertake six choice surveys. Respondents were exposed to combinations of research engagement subactions called 'profiles', and rated on a 1-9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1-3), moderate (4-6), or extensive (7-9) example of each research engagement action. Generalised estimating equations were used to analyse respondents' choice data, where a utility coefficient was calculated for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicates that a subaction was influential in guiding experts' ratings of extensive engagement with research.Results: The calculated utilities were used as the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of engaging with research: searching academic literature databases, obtaining systematic reviews and peer-reviewed research, appraising relevance by verifying its applicability to the policy context, appraising quality by evaluating the validity of the method and conclusions, engaging in thorough collaborations with researchers, and undertaking formal research projects to inform the policy in question.Conclusions: We have generated an empirically-derived and context-sensitive method of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers engaged with research to inform policy development. The scoring system can be used by organisations to quantify staff research engagement actions and thus provide them with insights into what types of training, systems, and tools might improve their staff's research use capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The importance of utilising the best available research evidence in the development of health policies, services, and programs is increasingly recognised, yet few standardised systems for quantifying policymakers' research use are available. We developed a comprehensive measurement and scoring tool that assesses four domains of research use (i.e. instrumental, conceptual, tactical, and imposed). The scoring tool breaks down each domain into its key subactions like a checklist. Our aim was to develop a tool that assigned appropriate scores to each subaction based on its relative importance to undertaking evidence-informed health policymaking. In order to establish the relative importance of each research use subaction and generate this scoring system, we conducted conjoint analysis with a sample of knowledge translation experts.Methods: Fifty-four experts were recruited to undertake four choice surveys. Respondents were shown combinations of research use subactions called profiles, and rated on a 1 to 9 scale whether each profile represented a limited (1-3), moderate (4-6), or extensive (7-9) example of research use. Generalised Estimating Equations were used to analyse respondents' choice data, which calculated a utility coefficient for each subaction. A large utility coefficient indicated that a subaction was particularly influential in guiding experts' ratings of extensive research use.Results: Utility coefficients were calculated for each subaction, which became the points assigned to the subactions in the scoring system. The following subactions yielded the largest utilities and were regarded as the most important components of each research use domain: using research to directly influence the core of the policy decision; using research to inform alternative perspectives to deal with the policy issue; using research to persuade targeted stakeholders to support a predetermined decision; and using research because it was a mandated requirement by the policymaker's organisation.Conclusions: We have generated an empirically derived and context-sensitive means of measuring and scoring the extent to which policymakers used research to inform the development of a policy document. The scoring system can be used by organisations to not only quantify the extent of their research use, but also to provide them with insights into potential strategies to improve subsequent research use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We present a multistep process for identifying priority research areas in rehabilitation and long-term care of traumatic braininjured (TBI) patients. In particular, we aimed to (1) identify which stakeholders should be involved; (2) identify what methods are appropriate; (3) examine different criteria for the generation of research priority areas; and (4) test the feasibility of linkage and exchange among researchers, decision makers, and other potential users of the research. Study Design and Setting: Potential research questions were identified and developed using an initial scoping meeting and preliminary literature search, followed by a facilitated mapping workshop and an online survey. Identified research questions were then prioritized against specific criteria (clinical importance, novelty, and controversy). Existing evidence was then mapped to the high-priority questions using usual processes for search, screening, and selection. A broad range of stakeholders were then brought together at a forum to identify priority research themes for future research investment. Using clinical and research leaders, smaller targeted planning workshops prioritized specific research projects for each of the identified themes. Results: Twenty-six specific questions about TBI rehabilitation were generated, 14 of which were high priority. No one method identified all high-priority questions. Methods that relied solely on the views of clinicians and researchers identified fewer high-priority questions compared with methods that used broader stakeholder engagement. Evidence maps of these high-priority questions yielded a number of evidence gaps. Priority questions and evidence maps were then used to inform a research forum, which identified 12 priority themes for future research. Conclusion: Our research demonstrates the value of a multistep and multimethod process involving many different types of stakeholders for prioritizing research to improve the rehabilitation outcomes of people who have suffered TBI. Enhancing stakeholder representation can be augmented using a combination of methods and a process of linkage and exchange. This process can inform decisions about prioritization of research areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a comparison between a novel evidence mapping search method and highly sensitive systematic review searches using the online database PubMed MEDLINE as a searching platform. Topics include an explanation of an evidence map, the labor intensive practice of evidence mapping, and the research methodology used, which included six questions randomly selected from existing traumatic brain injury (TBI) evidence maps to evaluate a novel evidence mapping methodology.

Abstract: Objective: To examine episiotomy practices before and after a multi-component intervention designed to support the use and generation of research evidence in maternal and neonatal health care. Methods: Set in 9 centers across 4 Southeast Asian countries, a retrospective survey was performed for 12 recommended pregnancy/childbirth practices and 13 outcomes of women in each center before and after intervention. Qualitative interviews were conducted to assess staff awareness and experience in evidence-based practice. Results: There were significant decreases in the rate of episiotomy, from 64.1% to 60.1% (risk difference [RD] –4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], –5.8 to –2.2) for all women and from 92.2% to 80.7% (RD –11.5; 95% CI, –13.4 to –9.6) for nulliparous women. Severe trauma decreased from 3.9% to 1.9% (RD –2.0; 95% CI, –2.7 to –1.4) for all women and from 6.7% to 3.0% (RD –3.7; 95% CI, –4.9 to –2.5) for nulliparous women. The frequency of intact perineum increased from 12.4% to 15.6% (RD 3.2; 95% CI, 1.9–4.6) for all women and from 1.7% to 8.0% (RD 6.3; 95% CI, 5.0–7.5) for nulliparous women. Conclusion: An intervention based on understanding and using the best available evidence can result in significant improvements in care and health outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Systematic reviews (SR) are vital to health care, but have become complicated and time-consuming, due to the rapid expansion of evidence to be synthesised. Fortunately, many tasks of systematic reviews have the potential to be automated or may be assisted by automation. Recent advances in natural language processing, text mining and machine learning have produced new algorithms that can accurately mimic human endeavour in systematic review activity, faster and more cheaply. Automation tools need to be able to work together, to exchange data and results. Therefore, we initiated the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR), to successfully put all the parts of automation of systematic review production together. The first meeting was held in Vienna in October 2015. We established a set of principles to enable tools to be developed and integrated into toolkits. This paper sets out the principles devised at that meeting, which cover the need for improvement in efficiency of SR tasks, automation across the spectrum of SR tasks, continuous improvement, adherence to high quality standards, flexibility of use and combining components, the need for a collaboration and varied skills, the desire for open source, shared code and evaluation, and a requirement for replicability through rigorous and open evaluation. Automation has a great potential to improve the speed of systematic reviews. Considerable work is already being done on many of the steps involved in a review. The 'Vienna Principles' set out in this paper aim to guide a more coordinated effort which will allow the integration of work by separate teams and build on the experience, code and evaluations done by the many teams working across the globe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Process evaluation is vital for understanding how interventions function in different settings, including if and why they have different effects or do not work at all. This is particularly important in trials of complex interventions in 'real world' organisational settings where causality is difficult to determine. Complexity presents challenges for process evaluation, and process evaluations that tackle complexity are rarely reported. This paper presents the detailed protocol for a process evaluation embedded in a randomised trial of a complex intervention known as SPIRIT (Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial). SPIRIT aims to build capacity for using research in health policy and program agencies.Methods: We describe the flexible and pragmatic methods used for capturing, managing and analysing data across three domains: (a) the intervention as it was implemented; (b) how people participated in and responded to the intervention; and (c) the contextual characteristics that mediated this relationship and may influence outcomes. Qualitative and quantitative data collection methods include purposively sampled semi-structured interviews at two time points, direct observation and coding of intervention activities, and participant feedback forms. We provide examples of the data collection and data management tools developed.Discussion: This protocol provides a worked example of how to embed process evaluation in the design and evaluation of a complex intervention trial. It tackles complexity in the intervention and its implementation settings. To our knowledge, it is the only detailed example of the methods for a process evaluation of an intervention conducted as part of a randomised trial in policy organisations. We identify strengths and weaknesses, and discuss how the methods are functioning during early implementation. Using 'insider' consultation to develop methods is enabling us to optimise data collection while minimising discomfort and burden for participants. Embedding the process evaluation within the trial design is facilitating access to data, but may impair participants' willingness to talk openly in interviews. While it is challenging to evaluate the process of conducting a randomised trial of a complex intervention, our experience so far suggests that it is feasible and can add considerably to the knowledge generated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rates of maternal and perinatal mortality remain high in developing countries despite the existence of effective interventions. Efforts to strengthen evidence-based approaches to improve health in these settings are partly hindered by restricted access to the best available evidence, limited training in evidence-based practice and concerns about the relevance of existing evidence. South East Asia--Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries (SEA-ORCHID) was a five-year project that aimed to determine whether a multifaceted intervention designed to strengthen the capacity for research synthesis, evidence-based care and knowledge implementation improved clinical practice and led to better health outcomes for mothers and babies. This paper describes the development and design of the SEA-ORCHID intervention plan using a logical framework approach.Methods: SEA-ORCHID used a before-and-after design to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted tailored intervention at nine sites across Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia, supported by three centres in Australia. We used a logical framework approach to systematically prepare and summarise the project plan in a clear and logical way. The development and design of the SEA-ORCHID project was based around the three components of a logical framework (problem analysis, project plan and evaluation strategy).Results: The SEA-ORCHID logical framework defined the project's goal and purpose (To improve the health of mothers and babies in South East Asia and To improve clinical practice in reproductive health in South East Asia), and outlined a series of project objectives and activities designed to achieve these. The logical framework also established outcome and process measures appropriate to each level of the project plan, and guided project work in each of the participating countries and hospitals.Conclusions: Development of a logical framework in the SEA-ORCHID project enabled a reasoned, logical approach to the project design that ensured the project activities would achieve the desired outcomes and that the evaluation plan would assess both the process and outcome of the project. The logical framework was also valuable over the course of the project to facilitate communication, assess progress and build a shared understanding of the project activities, purpose and goal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]