Development of a checklist for people communicating evidence-based information about the effects of healthcare interventions: a mixed methods study

Author:

Oxman Andrew D,Glenton Claire,Flottorp Signe,Lewin Simon,Rosenbaum Sarah,Fretheim AtleORCID

Abstract

ObjectivesTo make informed decisions about healthcare, patients and the public, health professionals and policymakers need information about the effects of interventions. People need information that is based on the best available evidence; that is presented in a complete and unbiased way; and that is relevant, trustworthy and easy to use and to understand. The aim of this paper is to provide guidance and a checklist to those producing and communicating evidence-based information about the effects of interventions intended to inform decisions about healthcare.DesignTo inform the development of this checklist, we identified research relevant to communicating evidence-based information about the effects of interventions. We used an iterative, informal consensus process to synthesise our recommendations. We began by discussing and agreeing on some initial recommendations, based on our own experience and research over the past 20–30 years. Subsequent revisions were informed by the literature we examined and feedback. We also compared our recommendations to those made by others. We sought structured feedback from people with relevant expertise, including people who prepare and use information about the effects of interventions for the public, health professionals or policymakers.ResultsWe produced a checklist with 10 recommendations. Three recommendations focus on making it easy to quickly determine the relevance of the information and find the key messages. Five recommendations are about helping the reader understand the size of effects and how sure we are about those estimates. Two recommendations are about helping the reader put information about intervention effects in context and understand if and why the information is trustworthy.ConclusionsThese 10 recommendations summarise lessons we have learnt developing and evaluating ways of helping people to make well-informed decisions by making research evidence more understandable and useful for them. We welcome feedback for how to improve our advice.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference66 articles.

1. Coulter A . How to provide patients with the right information to make informed decisions. Pharm J 2018;301.

2. Health Professions Council of South Africa . National Patients’ Rights Charter Pretoria, 2008. Available: https://www.safmh.org.za/documents/policies-and-legislations/Patient%20Rights%20Charter.pdf [Accessed 22 Nov 2019].

3. NHS Scotland . Your health, your rights: the charter of patient rights and responsibilities. Edinburgh: Scottish government, 2012. Available: https://www.gov.scot/resource/0039/00390989.pdf [Accessed 22 Nov 2019].

4. Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services . Patient and user rights act, 2018. Available: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1999-07-02-63 [Accessed 22 Nov 2019].

5. Conflicts of interest and expertise of independent commenters in news stories about medical research

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3