Better evidence for a better world
Full text keyword search[?]
"search" : Search for an exact word or phrase
-search : Exclude a word. Add a dash (-) before a word to exclude all results that include that word.
OR : Search for either word. If you want to search for pages that may have just one of several words, include OR (capitalised) between the words. For example, "labor" OR "labour" will show results containing pages with "labor" and "labour". Without the OR, your results will show only pages that match all terms.
intitle: Search for a word or phrase. Unlike the Title search field below the Keyword search field, you can combine terms. For example: intitle:female OR intitle:women will show results containing pages with "female" and "women" in the title.
intext: Search only in the description text field of the page. This field usually contains the abstract or summary of the publication.
Campbell systematic reviews
Browse by subject area
- Business & Management
- Crime & Justice
- International Development (including Nutrition)
- Knowledge Translation & Implementation
- Social Welfare
Learn more about Campbell systematic reviews
Campbell evidence and gap maps
Coming soon – Campbell EGMs are a new evidence synthesis product. Plain language summaries of our EGMs will be published on this website. The interactive EGMs and full EGM reports will be available in our journal on the Wiley Online Library platform: click here.
Learn more about Campbell EGMs
Campbell has produced maps on other topics, sometimes in partnership with other organisations.
See the Campbell-partnered EGMs
- Authors Jennifer Petkovic, Vivian Welch, Marie Helena Jacob, Manosila Yoganathan, Ana Patricia Ayala, Heather Cunningham, Peter Tugwell
- Published date 2018-09-10
- Coordinating group(s) Knowledge Translation and Implementation
- Type of document Review Plain language summary
- Title Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers’ use of evidence from systematic reviews?
- Library Image
- See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.8
- Records available in English, Spanish
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Policy briefs make systematic reviews easier to understand but little evidence of impact on use of study findings
It is likely that evidence summaries are easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. Whether these summaries increase the use of evidence from systematic reviews in policymaking is not clear.
What is this review about?
Systematic reviews are long and technical documents that may be hard for policymakers to use when making decisions. Evidence summaries are short documents that describe research findings in systematic reviews. These summaries may simplify the use of systematic reviews.
Other names for evidence reviews are policy briefs, evidence briefs, summaries of findings, or plain language summaries. The goal of this review was to learn whether evidence summaries help policymakers use evidence from systematic reviews. This review also aimed to identify the best ways to present the evidence summary to increase the use of evidence.
What is the aim of this review?
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers’ decision making, or the most effective ways to present evidence summaries to increase policymakers’ use of the evidence.
What are the main findings of this review?
This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one.
The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at “policy briefs,” one study looked at an “evidence summary,” two looked at a “summary of findings table,” and one compared a “summary of findings table” to an evidence summary.
None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, “Is this summary easy to understand?”
Some of the studies looked at users’ knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews.
What do the findings of this review mean?
Our review suggests that evidence summaries help policymakers better understand the findings presented in systematic reviews. In short, evidence summaries should be developed to make it easier for policymakers to understand the evidence presented in systematic reviews. However, right now there is very little evidence on the best way to present systematic review evidence to policymakers.
How up-to-date is this review?
The authors of this review searched for studies through June 2016.
Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.