Search

Background: We completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.Methods: We used the Arksey and O'Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.Results: We identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.Conclusions: Systematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To systematically review health economic guidelines for information on how to present health economic evaluations and consider implications for nontechnical audiences such as policymakers.Methods: Electronic databases and supplementary sources were searched for economic evaluation guidelines. Guidelines were critically appraised. Descriptive characteristics, standard formats, supports for nontechnical audiences, presentation approaches, and common reporting recommendations were extracted. Frequencies were tabulated and trends identified.Results: Thirty-one guidelines were included. Twenty-two guidelines include a standard reporting format with some sample tables and graphs. Common presentation approaches include well-cited tables of data sources, transparent model diagrams and descriptions, disaggregated results, and tabular and graphical displays of sensitivity analyses. Despite most guidelines being funded by policymakers, only five guidelines provided advice on presenting economic evaluations to noneconomists. However, 11 guidelines included a glossary of economic terminology for nontechnical readers. Common concepts that may require further explanation include differences in economic perspectives, appropriateness of time horizons, how economic outcomes such as quality-adjusted life-years relate to their component clinical outcomes, and choice of sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: Health economists have consistent presentation formats and common reporting elements that should be considered when developing user-friendly explanations for general audiences. These overlap with policymakers' informational needs but may not be sufficient for understanding by nontechnical audiences. Developing presentation formats and tools that incorporate viewpoints of both economists and noneconomists will allow for better application of the results of economic evaluations and enhance the transparency and legitimacy of decision-making processes that are informed by economic evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]