Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT03041454

Testing New Formats for the Presentation of Research Evidence to Health Care Managers and Policy Makers

The purpose of this project is to identify and use our knowledge on the barriers and facilitators to using systematic reviews (SR) by health care managers (HCM) and policy markers (PM) to develop and test a novel format for presentation of SR for HCM and PM. We will invite HCM and PM from hospitals and regional authorities in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia to participate in a randomized-control trial. Participants will receive a link to an online consent survey, and then be randomly allocated to receive access to a novel SR or its traditional presentation. There is no time limit to completing the task, and participants are able to save their responses and finish later. Participants are able to withdraw from the study by not completing the task.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Uptake of Systematic Review Evidence

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

St. Michael's Hospital

Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada

About this study

Despite advances in the conduct and reporting of traditional systematic reviews, current evidence suggests that they are used infrequently by health care managers and policy makers in decision making. Managers and policy makers have suggested that concise presentation positively affects the use of systematic reviews. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to assess the impact of a traditional systematic review format compared with the innovative format on the ability of health care managers and policy makers to understand the evidence in the review and apply it to a relevant health care decision making scenario.

The two end-user groups have different formatting needs and we will therefore run 2 parallel studies, randomizing each group separately. Once participants have consented to participate, a computer generated randomization process will allocate them to one of 2 arms (1:1 ratio). Participants will either receive either a traditional format or a novel format. Unequal block randomization will be used and allocation will be concealed through central assignment. Outcomes assessors will be blinded and participants will be blinded to the citation of the review so that the traditional version will not be easily accessible in its original format from the relevant journal.

This study will be the first study to engage health care managers and policy makers in the testing of formats for presentation of research evidence relevant to their needs. The results of the project will help increase the uptake of systematic review results in health care management policy decision-making, ultimately leading to informed decision making and positively impacting the health of Canadians.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Health care managers from the Alberta SCNs, CAHO in Ontario, the RHAs and AQESSS in Quebec and RHAs from BC will be invited to participate.
  • Policy makers/analysts from the Ontario, BC, Alberta and Quebec Ministries of Health

Exclusion criteria

  • Health care managers or policy makers who are unwilling or unable to give informed consent.

Treatment and study plan

Novel systematic review format

Other

A 2-page summary of systematic review content that has been designed in collaboration with policy makers and health care managers.

Primary outcomes

  1. Proportion of participants (health care managers or policy makers) who appropriately consider and apply the evidence from each systematic review format

    Time frame: This measure will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours).

    The proportion of participants (health care managers or policy makers) who appropriately consider and apply the evidence from each systematic review format to the scenario as measured by agreement with an expert panel's recommendation. A panel of 4 health care managers or policy makers from our research team and 2 content experts. Their answers will provide the definition of appropriate application of the evidence. Two investigators who will be blind to allocation will independently determine if the participant's answer agrees with that from the expert panel. Disagreements will be resolved by a third investigator, independently. Agreement between investigators will be reported using the kappa statistic.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Comprehension of the review

    Time frame: This measures will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours).

    Comprehension of the review - defined as the proportion of participants (health care managers or policy makers) who accurately define the bottom line from the systematic review as defined by an expert panel. A panel of 4 health care managers or policy makers from our research team and 2 content experts. Their answers will provide the definition of the bottom line from the systematic review. Two investigators who will be blind to allocation will independently determine if the participant's answer agrees with that from the expert panel. Disagreements will be resolved by a third investigator, independently. Agreement between investigators will be reported using the kappa statistic.

  2. Intention to use evidence

    Time frame: This measures will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours).

    Intention to use evidence - collected through a 12-item likert scale survey. The survey has good face validity amongst policy makers and managers. The mean and SD of each item in the survey will be reported and we will provide a summary score of all items and convert it to a percentage.

  3. Perceived tentativeness of research findings

    Time frame: This measures will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours).

    Perceived tentativeness of research findings - collected through a 6-item likert scale survey. This has been pre-tested to make sure that the items are intelligible to people and to achieve high levels of face validity and reliability. The mean and SD of each item in the survey will be reported and we will provide a summary score of all items and convert it to a percentage.

  4. Provisional opinion about the intervention

    Time frame: This measures will be assessed at the particular time the intervention is administered (i.e., at the time the participant reads the systematic review format, an average of 2 hours).

    Provisional opinion about the intervention - collected through a 14-item likert scale survey. This has been pre-tested to make sure that the items are intelligible to people and to achieve high levels of face validity and reliability. The mean and SD of each item in the survey will be reported and we will provide a summary score of all items and convert it to a percentage.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Unity Health Toronto

Other

Registry information

Official study title

A Randomized Trial to Compare the Effects of a Novel Versus Traditional Systematic Review Format on the Ability of Health Care Managers and Policy Makers to Understand and Apply Evidence

Important dates

Study start
2017
Primary completion
2019
Study completion
2019
First posted
Feb 2, 2017
Registry last updated
May 7, 2020

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.