Identifying strategies to improve access to credible and relevant information for public health professionals: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Movement towards evidence-based practices in many fields suggests that public health (PH) challenges may be better addressed if credible information about health risks and effective PH practices is readily available. However, research has shown that many PH information needs are unmet. In addition to reviewing relevant literature, this study performed a comprehensive review of existing information resources and collected data from two representative PH groups, focusing on identifying current practices, expressed information needs, and ideal systems for information access. METHODS: Nineteen individual interviews were conducted among employees of two domains in a state health department – communicable disease control and community health promotion. Subsequent focus groups gathered additional data on preferences for methods of information access and delivery as well as information format and content. Qualitative methods were used to identify themes in the interview and focus group transcripts. RESULTS: Informants expressed similar needs for improved information access including single portal access with a good search engine; automatic notification regarding newly available information; access to best practice information in many areas of interest that extend beyond biomedical subject matter; improved access to grey literature as well as to more systematic reviews, summaries, and full-text articles; better methods for indexing, filtering, and searching for information; and effective ways to archive information accessed. Informants expressed a preference for improving systems with which they were already familiar such as PubMed and listservs rather than introducing new systems of information organization and delivery. A hypothetical ideal model for information organization and delivery was developed based on informants' stated information needs and preferred means of delivery. Features of the model were endorsed by the subjects who reviewed it. CONCLUSION: Many critical information needs of PH practitioners are not being met efficiently or at all. We propose a dual strategy of: 1) promoting incremental improvements in existing information delivery systems based on the expressed preferences of the PH users of the systems and 2) the concurrent development and rigorous evaluation of new models of information organization and delivery that draw on successful resources already operating to deliver information to clinical medical practitioners

Missing and accounted for: gaps and areas of wealth in the public health review literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High-quality review evidence is useful for informing and influencing public health policy and practice decisions. However, certain topic areas lack representation in terms of the quantity and quality of review literature available. The objectives of this paper are to identify the quantity, as well as quality, of review-level evidence available on the effectiveness of public health interventions for public health decision makers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Searches conducted on <url>http://www.health-evidence.ca</url> produced an inventory of public health review literature in 21 topic areas. Gaps and areas of wealth in the review literature, as well as the proportion of reviews rated methodologically strong, moderate, or weak were identified. The top 10 topic areas of interest for registered users and visitors of <url>http://www.health-evidence.ca</url> were extracted from user profile data and Google Analytics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Registered users' top three interests included: 1) healthy communities, 2) chronic diseases, and 3) nutrition. The top three preferences for visitors included: 1) chronic diseases, 2) physical activity, and 3) addiction/substance use. All of the topic areas with many (301+) available reviews were of interest to registered users and/or visitors (mental health, physical activity, addiction/substance use, adolescent health, child health, nutrition, adult health, and chronic diseases). Conversely, the majority of registered users and/or visitors did not have preference for topic areas with few (≤ 150) available reviews (food safety and inspection, dental health, environmental health) with the exception of social determinants of health and healthy communities. Across registered users' and visitors' topic areas of preference, 80.2% of the reviews were of well-done methodological quality, with 43.5% of reviews having a strong quality rating and 36.7% a moderate review quality rating.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In topic areas in which many reviews are available, higher level syntheses are needed to guide policy and practice. For other topic areas with few reviews, it is necessary to determine whether primary study evidence exists, or is needed, so that reviews can be conducted in the future. Considering that less than half of the reviews available on <url>http://www.health-evidence.ca</url> are of strong methodological quality, the quality of the review-level evidence needs to improve across the range of public health topic areas.</p

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the eighth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on the synthesis and presentation of research evidence, focusing on four key questions. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: We found two reviews of instruments for critically appraising systematic reviews, several studies of the importance of using extensive searches for reviews and determining when it is important to update reviews, and consensus statements about the reporting of reviews that informed our answers to the following questions. How should existing systematic reviews be critically appraised? • Because preparing systematic reviews can take over a year and require capacity and resources, existing reviews should be used when possible and updated, if needed. • Standard criteria, such as A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews (AMSTAR), should be used to critically appraise existing systematic reviews, together with an assessment of the relevance of the review to the questions being asked. When and how should WHO undertake or commission new reviews? • Consideration should be given to undertaking or commissioning a new review whenever a relevant, up-to-date review of good quality is not available. • When time or resources are limited it may be necessary to undertake rapid assessments. The methods that are used to do these assessments should be reported, including important limitations and uncertainties and explicit consideration of the need and urgency of undertaking a full systematic review. • Because WHO has limited capacity for undertaking systematic reviews, reviews will often need to be commissioned when a new review is needed. Consideration should be given to establishing collaborating centres to undertake or support this work, similar to what some national organisations have done. How should the findings of systematic reviews be summarised and presented to committees responsible for making recommendations? • Concise summaries (evidence tables) of the best available evidence for each important outcome, including benefits, harms and costs, should be presented to the groups responsible for making recommendations. These should include an assessment of the quality of the evidence and a summary of the findings for each outcome. • The full systematic reviews, on which the summaries are based, should also be available to both those making recommendations and users of the recommendations. What additional information is needed to inform recommendations and how should this information be synthesised with information about effects and presented to committees? • Additional information that is needed to inform recommendations includes factors that might modify the expected effects, need (prevalence, baseline risk or status), values (the relative importance of key outcomes), costs and the availability of resources. • Any assumptions that are made about values or other factors that may vary from setting to setting should be made explicit. • For global guidelines that are intended to inform decisions in different settings, consideration should be given to using a template to assist the synthesis of information specific to a setting with the global evidence of the effects of the relevant interventions