Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians

Laure Perrier, Nav Persaud, Anita Ko, Monika Kastner, Jeremy Grimshaw, K Ann McKibbon, Sharon E Straus, Laure Perrier, Nav Persaud, Anita Ko, Monika Kastner, Jeremy Grimshaw, K Ann McKibbon, Sharon E Straus

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews provide evidence for clinical questions, however the literature suggests they are not used regularly by physicians for decision-making. A shortened systematic review format is proposed as one possible solution to address barriers, such as lack of time, experienced by busy clinicians. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development process of two shortened formats for a systematic review intended for use by primary care physicians as an information tool for clinical decision-making.

Methods: We developed prototypes for two formats (case-based and evidence-expertise) that represent a summary of a full-length systematic review before seeking input from end-users. The process was composed of the following four phases: 1) selection of a systematic review and creation of initial prototypes that represent a shortened version of the systematic review; 2) a mapping exercise to identify obstacles described by clinicians in using clinical evidence in decision-making; 3) a heuristic evaluation (a usability inspection method); and 4) a review of the clinical content in the prototypes.

Results: After the initial prototypes were created (Phase 1), the mapping exercise (Phase 2) identified components that prompted modifications. Similarly, the heuristic evaluation and the clinical content review (Phase 3 and Phase 4) uncovered necessary changes. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results.

Conclusions: Documentation of the processes for developing products or tools provides essential information about how they are tailored for the intended user. One step has been described that we hope will increase usability and uptake of these documents to end-users.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Knowledge to action (KTA) framework.

References

    1. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou R, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. 3rd edition. Edinburgh. New York: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone; 2005.
    1. Cochrane Collaboration. About Cochrane Reviews. Available at: . Accessed March 3, 2013.
    1. Alper BS, Hand JA, Elliott SG, Kinkade S, Hauan MJ, Onion DK, Sklar BM. How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant for primary care? J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92(4):429–437.
    1. Laupacis A, Straus S. Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):273–274. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00180.
    1. De Vito C, Nobile CG, Furnari G, Pavia M, De Giusti M, Angelillo IF, Villari P. Physicians’ knowledge, attitudes and professional use of RCTs and meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey. Eur J Public Health. 2009;19(3):297–302. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn134.
    1. Coumou HC, Meijman FJ. How do primary care physicians seek answers to clinical questions? A literature review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(1):55–60.
    1. Grandage KK, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. When less is more: a practical approach to searching for evidence-based answers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90(3):298–304.
    1. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Chambliss ML, Vinson DC, Stevermer JJ, Pifer EA. Obstacles to answering doctors’ questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study. BMJ. 2002;324(7339):710. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7339.710.
    1. Perrier L, Mrklas K, Lavis JN, Straus SE. Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews by health policymakers and managers: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:43. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-43.
    1. Perrier L, Mrklas K, Shepperd S, Dobbins M, McKibbon KA, Straus SE. Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews in clinical decision-making: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(4):419–426. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1506-7.
    1. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful summary of findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(6):607–619. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013.
    1. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(6):620–626. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014.
    1. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):13–24. doi: 10.1002/chp.47.
    1. Health Information Research Unit. McMaster PLUS. Available at: . Accessed February 15, 2013.
    1. Licht DM, Polzella DJ, Boff K. Human Factors, Ergonomics, and Human Factors Engineering: An Analysis of Definitions. CSERIAC-89-01. CSERIAC: Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, OH; 1989.
    1. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. HHS Web Communications and New Media Division. Available at: . Accessed February 15, 2013.
    1. McGowan J, Grad R, Pluye P, Hannes K, Deane K, Labrecque M, Welch V, Tugwell P. Electronic retrieval of health information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009.
    1. Atkinson RA, Derry SJ, Renkl A, Wortham D. Learning from examples: Instructional principles from worked examples research. Rev Educ Res. 2000;70(2):181–214. doi: 10.3102/00346543070002181.
    1. Lee AY, Hutchison L. Improving learning from examples through reflection. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1998;4(3):187–210.
    1. Robertson I, Kahney H. The use of examples in expository texts: Outline of an interpretation theory for text analysis. Instruc Sci. 1996;24:93–123. doi: 10.1007/BF00120485.
    1. Moreno R, Mayer RE. Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multi-media messages. J Educ Psych. 2000;92(4):724–733.
    1. Czuchry M, Dansereau DF. The generation and recall of personally relevant information. J Exp Info. 1998;66(4):293–315.
    1. Thomas JC. Story-based mechanisms of tacit knowledge transfer. 2002. ECSCW 2001 Workshop on Managing Tacit Knowledge.
    1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71–72. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71.
    1. El Dib RP, Atallah AN, Andriolo RB. Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(4):689–692. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00886.x.
    1. Clarke L, Clarke M, Clarke T. How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(2):101–103. doi: 10.1258/135581907780279648.
    1. Lottridge DM, Chignell M, Danicic-Mizdrak R, Pavlovic NJ, Kushniruk A, Straus SE. Group differences in physician responses to handheld presentation of clinical evidence: a verbal protocol analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:22. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-7-22.
    1. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, Evans ER. Analysis of questions asked by family physicians regarding patient care. West J Med. 2000;172(5):315–319. doi: 10.1136/ewjm.172.5.315.
    1. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Chambliss ML, Ebell MH, Rosenbaum ME. Answering physicians’ clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(2):217–224.
    1. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, Evans ER. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ. 1999;319(7206):358–361.
    1. Ely JW, Levy BT, Hartz A. What clinical information resources are available in family physicians’ offices? J Fam Pract. 1999;48(2):135–139.
    1. Ely JW, Yankowitz J, Bowdler NC. Evaluation of pregnant women exposed to respiratory viruses. Am Fam Physician. 2000;61(10):3065–3074.
    1. Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Gorman PN, Ebell MH, Chambliss ML, Pifer EA, Stavri PZ. A taxonomy of generic clinical questions: classification study. BMJ. 2000;321(7258):429-3.
    1. Ely JW. Why can’t we answer our questions? J Fam Pract. 2001;50(11):974–975.
    1. Nielsen J, Molich R. In: Proceedings of the ACM CHI 90 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference 1990. Carrasco J, Whiteside J, editor. Seattle, Washington,USA; 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces; pp. 249–256.
    1. Nielsen J. In: Proceedings of the ACM CHI 92 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference June 3-7, 1992. Bauersfeld P, Bennett J, Lynch G, editor. Monterey, California; 1992. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation; pp. 373–380.
    1. Nielsen J, Mack R, editor. Usability inspection methods. New York: Wiley; 1994.
    1. Nielsen J. Usability engineering. Boston: AP Professional; 1994.
    1. Nielsen J. Determining the number of evaluators. Available at: . Accessed March 3, 2013.
    1. Jovicic A, Chignell M, Wu R, Straus SE. Is Web-only self-care education sufficient for heart failure patients? AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009;2009:296–300.
    1. Nielsen J. In: Usability inspection methods. Nielsen J, Mack RL, editor. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994. Heuristic evaluation.
    1. Nielsen J. How to conduct a usability evaluation. Available at: . Accessed March 3, 2013.
    1. van Zuuren EJ, Gupta AK, Gover MD, Graber M, Hollis S. Systematic review of rosacea treatments. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56(1):107–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.04.084.
    1. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London, England: Chapman and Hall; 1991. p. 404.
    1. Cranney M, Walley T. Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46(412):661–663.
    1. Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE. General practitioners’ self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. BMJ. 2002;324(7343):950–951. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7343.950.
    1. O’Donnell CA. Attitudes and knowledge of primary care professionals towards evidence-based practice: a postal survey. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10(2):197–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2003.00458.x.
    1. Allen M, MacLeod T, Handfield-Jones R, Sinclair D, Fleming M. Presentation of evidence in continuing medical education programs: a mixed methods study. JCEHP. 2010;30(4):221–228.
    1. Hartley J. In: Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. 2. Jonassen D, editor. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 2004. Designing instructional and informational text; pp. 917–948.
    1. Wilhite SC. Headings as memory facilitators: the importance of prior knowledge. J Educ Psych. 1989;81:115–117.
    1. Niegemann HM. In: Discourse processing. Flammer A, Kintsch W, editor. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1982. Influences of titles on the recall of instructional texts.
    1. Sadoski M, Goetz ET, Rodriguez M. Engaging texts: effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. J Educ Psych. 2000;92(1):85–95.
    1. Lakoff G. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Concepts. 1973;2:458–508.
    1. Riggle KB. Using the active and passive voice appropriately in on-the-job writing. J Tech Writ Commun. 1998;28(1):85–117.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir