Assessing the impact of systematic reviews on future research: two case studies

被引:0
|
作者
Viswanathan, Meera [1 ]
Nerz, Patrick [2 ]
Dalberth, Barbara [1 ]
Voisin, Christiane [3 ]
Lohr, Kathleen N. [4 ]
Tant, Elizabeth [1 ]
Jonas, Daniel E. [5 ]
Carey, Timothy [3 ]
机构
[1] RTI Int, Social Policy Hlth & Econ Res, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Dept City & Reg Planning, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[3] Univ N Carolina, Cecil G Sheps Ctr Hlth Serv Res, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[4] RTI Int, Social Stat & Environm Sci, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[5] Univ N Carolina, Div Gen Med, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
关键词
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; case studies; evaluation of research impact; Evidence-based Practice Centers; systematic reviews;
D O I
10.2217/CER.12.28
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Aims: To evaluate the impact of systematic reviews on research funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) through Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), and to identify barriers to and facilitators for the effects of these documents on future research. Methods & materials: Two AHRQ systematic reviews were selected as case studies to evaluate their impact on future research. Key citations generated by these reports were identified through ISI Web of Science and PubMed Central and traced forward to identify effects on subsequent studies through citation analysis from updated systematic reviews on the topics. Requests for applications and program announcements from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts website were reviewed and dissemination data were obtained from AHRQ. Finally, interviews were conducted with 13 key informants to help identify short-, medium-and long-term impacts of the EPC reviews. Results: The measurable impact of the two EPC reviews is demonstrably greater on short-term outcomes (greater awareness of the issues) than on medium-term (e. g., the generation of new knowledge) or long-term outcomes (e. g., changes in patient practice or health outcomes). Factors such as the topic and the timing of the report relative to the development of the field may explain the impact of these two AHRQ reports. The degree to which the new research can be directly attributed to the AHRQ reviews remains unclear. Key informants discussed several benefits stemming from the EPC reports, including providing a foundation for the research community on which to build, heightening awareness of the gaps in knowledge, increasing the quality of research and sparking new directions of research. However, the degree to which these reports were influential hinged on several factors including marketing efforts, the very nature of the reports and other influences external to the EPC domain. Conclusions: The findings outlined in this article illustrate the importance of numerous factors influencing future research: the breadth, specificity and readiness of the topic for more research, ongoing developments in the field, availability of funding and active engagement of champions. AHRQ and the EPCs may be able to improve the likelihood of impact by creating more targeted products, planning for and expanding dissemination activities, improving the readability and other attributes of the reports themselves, and actively involving funders early on and throughout the process of creating and publishing the reviews.
引用
收藏
页码:329 / 346
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Assessing the quality of primary studies in systematic reviews
    Haq, Sheikh Moeen Ul
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH PROMOTION AND EDUCATION, 2008, 46 (04) : 139 - 141
  • [2] Bufale spotting, part two: assessing systematic reviews
    Jefferson, Tom
    Zarra, Lucia
    JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE, 2007, 100 (04) : 180 - 181
  • [3] Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies
    Christiana A. Naaktgeboren
    Eleanor A. Ochodo
    Wynanda A. Van Enst
    Joris A. H. de Groot
    Lotty Hooft
    Mariska M. G. Leeflang
    Patrick M. Bossuyt
    Karel G. M. Moons
    Johannes B. Reitsma
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16
  • [4] Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies
    Naaktgeboren, Christiana A.
    Ochodo, Eleanor A.
    Van Enst, Wynanda A.
    de Groot, Joris A. H.
    Hooft, Lotty
    Leeflang, Mariska M. G.
    Bossuyt, Patrick M.
    Moons, Karel G. M.
    Reitsma, Johannes B.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2016, 16
  • [5] A systematic review for assessing the impact of climate change on landslides: research gaps and directions for future research
    Sharma, Aastha
    Sajjad, Haroon
    Roshani
    Rahaman, Md Hibjur
    SPATIAL INFORMATION RESEARCH, 2024, 32 (02) : 165 - 185
  • [6] A systematic review for assessing the impact of climate change on landslides: research gaps and directions for future research
    Aastha Sharma
    Haroon Sajjad
    Md Hibjur Roshani
    Spatial Information Research, 2024, 32 (2) : 165 - 185
  • [7] Overview of systematic reviews assessing the impact of clinical pharmacy services
    Rotta, Inajara
    Salgado, Teresa M.
    Fernandez-Llimos, Fernando
    Correr, Cassyano J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY, 2015, 37 (01) : 285 - 285
  • [8] Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia
    Ioannis Tsakiridis
    Alexandra Arvanitaki
    Elias Zintzaras
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2019, 299 : 689 - 694
  • [9] Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia
    Tsakiridis, Ioannis
    Arvanitaki, Alexandra
    Zintzaras, Elias
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2019, 299 (03) : 689 - 694
  • [10] PASS: A checklist for assessing the quality of systematic reviews of prevalence studies
    Walker, Jane
    Hobbs, Harriet
    Magill, Nicholas
    van Niekerk, Maike
    Sharpe, Michael
    GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY, 2022, 74 : 133 - 134