Browsing by Author "Wiysonge, Charles S."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence
    (2018) Johansen, Marit; Rada G., Gabriel; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Paulsen, Elizabeth; Motaze, Nkengafac V.; Opiyo, Newton; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Ding, Yunpeng; Mukinda, Fidele K.; Oxman, Andrew D.
    Abstract Background A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. Methods We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Results A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. Conclusions PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .Abstract Background A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. Methods We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Results A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. Conclusions PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .Abstract Background A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. Methods We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Results A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. Conclusions PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Alma-Ata: Rebirth and revision 2 - Supporting the delivery of cost-effective interventions in primary health-care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews
    (ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 2008) Lewin, Simon; Lavis, John N.; Oxman, Andrew D.; Bastias, Gabriel; Chopra, Mickey; Ciapponi, Agustin; Flottorp, Signe; Garcia Marti, Sebastian; Pantoja, Tomas; Rada, Gabriel; Souza, Nathan; Treweek, Shaun; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Haines, Andy
    Strengthening health systems is a key challenge to improving the delivery of cost-effective interventions in primary health care and achieving the vision of the Alma-Ata Declaration. Effective governance, financial and delivery arrangements within health systems, and effective implementation strategies are needed urgently in low-income and middle-income countries. This overview summarises the evidence from systematic reviews of health systems arrangements and implementation strategies, with a particular focus on evidence relevant to primary health care in such settings. Although evidence is sparse, there are several promising health systems arrangements and implementation strategies for strengthening primary health care. However, their introduction must be accompanied by rigorous evaluations. The evidence base needs urgently to be strengthened, synthesised, and taken into account in policy and practice, particularly for the benefit of those who have been excluded from the health care advances of recent decades.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline
    (2023) Funnell, Sarah; Jull, Janet; Mbuagbaw, Lawrence; Welch, Vivian; Dewidar, Omar; Wang, Xiaoqin; Lesperance, Miranda; Ghogomu, Elizabeth; Rizvi, Anita; Akl, Elie A.; Avey, Marc T.; Antequera, Alba; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A.; Chamberlain, Catherine; Craig, Peter; Cuervo, Luis G.; Dicko, Alassane; Ellingwood, Holly; Feng, Cindy; Francis, Damian; Greer-Smith, Regina; Hardy, Billie-Jo; Harwood, Matire; Hatcher-Roberts, Janet; Horsley, Tanya; Juando-Prats, Clara; Kasonde, Mwenya; Kennedy, Michelle; Kredo, Tamara; Krentel, Alison; Kristjansson, Elizabeth; Langer, Laurenz; Little, Julian; Loder, Elizabeth; Magwood, Olivia; Mahande, Michael J.; Melendez-Torres, G. J.; Moore, Ainsley; Niba, Loveline L.; Nicholls, Stuart G.; Nkangu, Miriam N.; Lawson, Daeria O.; Obuku, Ekwaro; Okwen, Patrick; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Petkovic, Jennifer; Petticrew, Mark; Pottie, Kevin; Rader, Tamara; Ramke, Jacqueline; Riddle, Alison; Shamseer, Larissa; Sharp, Melissa; Shea, Bev; Tanuseputro, Peter; Tugwell, Peter; Tufte, Janice; Von Elm, Erik; Waddington, Hugh S.; Wang, Harry; Weeks, Laura; Wells, George; White, Howard; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Wolfenden, Luke; Young, Taryn
    Background Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. Methods We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. Discussion Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.