Systematic reviews examining implementation of research into practice and impact on population health are needed

Sze Lin Yoong; Tara Clinton-McHarg; Luke Wolfenden

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.008

Systematic reviews examining implementation of research into practice and impact on population health are needed

J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jul;68(7):788-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.008. Epub 2014 Dec 30.

Authors

Sze Lin Yoong¹, Tara Clinton-McHarg², Luke Wolfenden²

Affiliations

¹ Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Booth Building, Longworth Avenue, Wallsend, New South Wales 2287, Australia; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308, Australia; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308, Australia. Electronic address: Serene.Yoong@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au.
² Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Booth Building, Longworth Avenue, Wallsend, New South Wales 2287, Australia; School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308, Australia; Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308, Australia.

PMID: 25619562
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.008

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the research translation phase focus (T1-T4) of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Briefly, T1 includes reviews of basic science experiments; T2 includes reviews of human trials leading to guideline development; T3 includes reviews examining how to move guidelines into policy and practice; and T4 includes reviews describing the impact of changing health practices on population outcomes.

Study design and setting: A cross-sectional audit of randomly selected reviews from CDSR (n = 500) and DARE (n = 500) was undertaken. The research translation phase of reviews, overall and by communicable disease, noncommunicable disease, and injury subgroups, were coded by two researchers.

Results: A total of 898 reviews examined a communicable, noncommunicable, or injury-related condition. Of those, 98% of reviews within CDSR focused on T2, and the remaining 2% focused on T3. In DARE, 88% focused on T2, 8.7% focused on T1, 2.5% focused on T3, and 1.3% focused on T4. Almost all reviews examining communicable (CDSR 100%, DARE 93%), noncommunicable (CDSR 98%, DARE 87%), and injury (CDSR 95%, DARE 88%) were also T2 focused.

Conclusion: Few reviews exist to guide practitioners and policy makers with implementing evidence-based treatments or programs.

Keywords: Bibliographic; Databases; Knowledge translation; Policy; Systematic review; Translational research.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Cross-Sectional Studies
Databases, Factual / statistics & numerical data*
Diffusion of Innovation
Evidence-Based Practice
Health Impact Assessment*
Health Plan Implementation / methods*
Health Plan Implementation / organization & administration*
Health Services Needs and Demand*
Health Services Research / organization & administration*
Health Services Research / statistics & numerical data
Humans
Policy Making
Public Health Administration / statistics & numerical data
Review Literature as Topic
Translational Research, Biomedical