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
  • [21] Chapter 6: Assessing Applicability of Medical Test Studies in Systematic Reviews
    K. E. Hartmann
    D. B. Matchar
    S. Chang
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2012, 27 : 39 - 46
  • [22] Assessing the methodological quality of studies included in systematic reviews: Interpretation of scores
    Buchler, Andrea C.
    In't Holt, Anne F. Voor
    INFECTION CONTROL & HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 44 (01) : 169 - 170
  • [23] Forty-two systematic reviews generated 23 items for assessing the risk of bias in values and preferences' studies
    Jose Yepes-Nunez, Juan
    Zhang, Yuan
    Xie, Feng
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Selva, Anna
    Schunemann, Holger
    Guyatt, Gordon
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 85 : 21 - 31
  • [24] Systematic Reviews of Systematic Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Studies Reviews in Healthcare Research: How to Assess the Methodological Quality of Included Reviews?
    Rouleau, Genevieve
    Quan Nha Hong
    Kaur, Navdeep
    Gagnon, Marie-Pierre
    Cote, Jose
    Bouix-Picasso, Julien
    Pluye, Pierre
    JOURNAL OF MIXED METHODS RESEARCH, 2023, 17 (01) : 51 - 69
  • [25] The characteristics and reporting quality of research impact case studies: A systematic review
    Heyeres, Marion
    Tsey, Kotula
    Yang, Yinghong
    Yan, Li
    Jiang, Hua
    EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING, 2019, 73 : 10 - 23
  • [26] SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS - IDENTIFYING RELEVANT STUDIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
    DICKERSIN, K
    SCHERER, R
    LEFEBVRE, C
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1994, 309 (6964): : 1286 - 1291
  • [27] Systematic reviews of research
    Mayberry, LJ
    Lowe, NK
    JOGNN-JOURNAL OF OBSTETRIC GYNECOLOGIC AND NEONATAL NURSING, 2004, 33 (04): : 409 - 409
  • [28] Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies; Missing Link in Translational Research?
    van Luijk, Judith
    Bakker, Brenda
    Rovers, Maroeska M.
    Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel
    de Vries, Rob B. M.
    Leenaars, Marlies
    PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (03):
  • [29] Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future?
    Lefebvre C.
    Glanville J.
    Wieland L.S.
    Coles B.
    Weightman A.L.
    Systematic Reviews, 2 (1) : 78
  • [30] Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review
    Rosengaard, Louise Olsbro
    Andersen, Mikkel Zola
    Rosenberg, Jacob
    Fonnes, Siv
    PEERJ, 2024, 12