What guidance are researchers given on how to present network meta-analyses to end-users such as policymakers and clinicians? A systematic review

© 2014 Sullivan et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Introduction: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) are complex methodological approaches that may be challenging for non-technical end-users, such as policymakers and clinicians, to understand. Consideration should be given to identifying optimal approaches to presenting NMAs that help clarify analyses. It is unclear what guidance researchers currently have on how to present and tailor NMAs to different end-users. Methods: A systematic review of NMA guidelines was conducted to identify guidance on how to present NMAs. Electronic databases and supplementary sources were searched for NMA guidelines. Presentation format details related to sample formats, target audiences, data sources, analysis methods and results were extracted and frequencies tabulated. Guideline quality was assessed following criteria developed for clinical practice guidelines. Results: Seven guidelines were included. Current guidelines focus on how to conduct NMAs but provide limited guidance to researchers on how to best present analyses to different end-users. None of the guidelines provided reporting templates. Few guidelines provided advice on tailoring presentations to different end-users, such as policymakers. Available guidance on presentation formats focused on evidence networks, characteristics of individual trials, comparisons between direct and indirect estimates and assumptions of heterogeneity and/or inconsistency. Some guidelines also provided examples of figures and tables that could be used to present information. Conclusions: Limited guidance exists for researchers on how best to present NMAs in an accessible format, especially for non-technical end-users such as policymakers and clinicians. NMA guidelines may require further integration with end-users' needs, when NMAs are used to support healthcare policy and practice decisions. Developing presentation formats that enhance understanding and accessibility of NMAs could also enhance the transparency and legitimacy of decisions informed by NMAs.The Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (Funding reference number – 116573)

Evidence-informed health policy: are we beginning to get there at last

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Building the Field of Health Policy and Systems Research: An Agenda for Action

In the final article in a series addressing the current challenges and opportunities for the development of Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR), Sara Bennett and colleagues lay out an agenda for action moving forward

An exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of knowledge translation strategies to support evidence-informed decision-making in local governments (The KT4LG study)

Background: Childhood overweight and obesity is the most prevalent and, arguably, politically complex child health problem internationally. Governments, communities and industry have important roles to play, and are increasingly expected to deliver an evidence-informed system-wide prevention program. However, efforts are impeded by a lack of organisational access to and use of research evidence. This study aims to identify feasible, acceptable and ideally, effective knowledge translation (KT) strategies to increase evidence-informed decision making in local governments, within the context of childhood obesity prevention as a national policy priority.Methods/Design: This paper describes the methods for KT4LG, a cluster randomised controlled trial which is exploratory in nature, given the limited evidence base and methodological advances. KT4LG aims to examine a program of KT strategies to increase the use of research evidence in informing public health decisions in local governments. KT4LG will also assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. The intervention program comprises a facilitated program of evidence awareness, access to tailored research evidence, critical appraisal skills development, networking and evidence summaries and will be compared to provision of evidence summaries alone in the control program. 28 local governments were randomised to intervention or control, using computer generated numbers, stratified by budget tertile (high, medium or low). Questionnaires will be used to measure impact, costs, and outcomes, and key informant interviews will be used to examine processes, feasibility, and experiences. Policy tracer studies will be included to examine impact of intervention on policies within relevant government policy documents.Discussion: Knowledge translation intervention studies with a focus on public health and prevention are very few in number. Thus, this study will provide essential data on the experience of program implementation and evaluation of a system-integrated intervention program employed within the local government public health context. Standardised programs of system, organisational and individual KT strategies have not been described or rigorously evaluated. As such, the findings will make a significant contribution to understanding whether a facilitated program of KT strategies hold promise for facilitating evidence-informed public health decision making within complex multisectoral government organisations.<br /

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 15. Disseminating and implementing guidelines

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 15(th )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: In this review we address strategies for the implementation of recommendations in health care. METHODS: We examined overviews of systematic reviews of interventions to improve health care delivery and health care systems prepared by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. We also conducted searches using 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: What should WHO do to disseminate and facilitate the uptake of recommendations? • WHO should choose strategies to implement their guidelines from among those which have been evaluated positively in the published literature on implementation research • Because the evidence base is weak and modest to moderate effects, at best, can be anticipated, WHO should promote rigorous evaluations of implementation strategies. What should be done at headquarters, by regional offices and in countries? • Adaptation and implementation of WHO guidelines should be done locally, at the national or sub-national level. • WHO headquarters and regional offices should support the development and evaluation of implementation strategies by local authorities

Aligning research to meet policy objectives for migrant families: an example from Canada

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>'Evidence-based policy making' for immigrants is a complicated undertaking. In striving toward this goal, federal Canadian partners created the <it>Metropolis Project </it>in 1995 to optimize a two-way transfer of knowledge (researchers – policy makers) within five Canadian Centres of Excellence focused on migrants newly arrived in Canada. Most recently, <it>Metropolis </it>federal partners, including the Public Health Agency of Canada, defined one of six research priority areas as, immigrant 'families, children, and youth'. In order to build on previous work in the partnership, we sought to determine what has been studied within this research-policy partnership about immigrant 'families, children, and youth' since its inception.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Annual reports and working papers produced in the five Centres of Excellence between 1996–2006 were culled. Data on academic works were extracted, results coded according to eleven stated federal policy priority themes, and analyzed descriptively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>139 academic works were reviewed. All federal priority themes, but few specific policy questions were addressed. The greatest volume of policy relevant works were identified for <it>Services </it>(n = 42) and <it>Education and Cultural Identity </it>(n = 39) priority themes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Research conducted within the last 10 years is available to inform certain, not all, federal policy questions. Greater specificity in federal priorities can be expected to more clearly direct future research within this policy-research partnership.</p

Institutional capacity for health systems research in East and Central African Schools of Public Health: strengthening human and financial resources

BACKGROUND: Despite its importance in providing evidence for health-related policy and decision-making, an insufficient amount of health systems research (HSR) is conducted in low-income countries (LICs). Schools of public health (SPHs) are key stakeholders in HSR. This paper, one in a series of four, examines human and financial resources capacities, policies and organizational support for HSR in seven Africa Hub SPHs in East and Central Africa. METHODS: Capacity assessment done included document analysis to establish staff numbers, qualifications and publications; self-assessment using a tool developed to capture individual perceptions on the capacity for HSR and institutional dialogues. Key informant interviews (KIIs) were held with Deans from each SPH and Ministry of Health and non-governmental officials, focusing on perceptions on capacity of SPHs to engage in HSR, access to funding, and organizational support for HSR. RESULTS: A total of 123 people participated in the self-assessment and 73 KIIs were conducted. Except for the National University of Rwanda and the University of Nairobi SPH, most respondents expressed confidence in the adequacy of staffing levels and HSR-related skills at their SPH. However, most of the researchers operate at individual level with low outputs. The average number of HSR-related publications was only <1 to 3 per staff member over a 6-year period with most of the publications in international journals. There is dependency on external funding for HSR, except for Rwanda, where there was little government funding. We also found that officials from the Ministries of Health often formulate policy based on data generated through ad hoc technical reviews and consultancies, despite their questionable quality. CONCLUSIONS: There exists adequate skilled staff for HSR in the SPHs. However, HSR conducted by individuals, fuelled by Ministries’ of Health tendency to engage individual researchers, undermines institutional capacity. This study underscores the need to form effective multidisciplinary teams to enhance research of immediate and local relevance. Capacity strengthening in the SPH needs to focus on knowledge translation and communication of findings to relevant audiences. Advocacy is needed to influence respective governments to allocate adequate funding for HSR to avoid donor dependency that distorts local research agenda.DFI

Planning ahead in public health? A qualitative study of the time horizons used in public health decision-making

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In order to better understand factors that influence decisions for public health, we undertook a qualitative study to explore issues relating to the time horizons used in decision-making.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. 33 individuals involved in the decision making process around coronary heart disease were purposively sampled from the UK National Health Service (national, regional and local levels), academia and voluntary organizations. Analysis was based on the framework method using N-VIVO software. Interviews were transcribed, coded and emergent themes identified.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Many participants suggested that the timescales for public health decision-making are too short. Commissioners and some practitioners working at the national level particularly felt constrained in terms of planning for the long-term. Furthermore respondents felt that longer term planning was needed to address the wider determinants of health and to achieve societal level changes. Three prominent 'systems' issues were identified as important drivers of short term thinking: the need to demonstrate impact within the 4 year political cycle; the requirement to 'balance the books' within the annual commissioning cycle and the disruption caused by frequent re-organisations within the health service. In addition respondents suggested that the tools and evidence base for longer term planning were not well established.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Many public health decision and policy makers feel that the timescales for decision-making are too short. Substantial systemic barriers to longer-term planning exist. Policy makers need to look beyond short-term targets and budget cycles to secure investment for long-term improvement in public health.</p

Factors influencing the utilization of research findings by health policy-makers in a developing country: the selection of Mali's essential medicines

BACKGROUND: Research findings are increasingly being recognized as an important input in the formation of health policy. There is concern that research findings are not being utilized by health policy-makers to the extent that they could be. The factors influencing the utilization of various types of research by health policy-makers are beginning to emerge in the literature, however there is still little known about these factors in developing countries. The object of this study was to explore these factors by examining the policy-making process for a pharmaceutical policy common in developing countries; an essential medicines list. METHODS: A study of the selection and updating of Mali's national essential medicines list was undertaken using qualitative methods. In-depth semi-structured interviews and a natural group discussion were held with national policy-makers, most specifically members of the national commission that selects and updates the country's list. The resulting text was analyzed using a phenomenological approach. A document analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Several factors emerged from the textual data that appear to be influencing the utilization of health research findings for these policy-makers. These factors include: access to information, relevance of the research, use of research perceived as a time consuming process, trust in the research, authority of those who presented their view, competency in research methods, priority of research in the policy process, and accountability. CONCLUSION: Improving the transfer of research to policy will require effort on the part of researchers, policy-makers, and third parties. This will include: collaboration between researchers and policy-makers, increased production and dissemination of relevant and useful research, and continued and improved technical support from networks and multi-national organizations. Policy-makers from developing countries will then be better equipped to make informed decisions concerning their health policy issues

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers