Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:22:57.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of systematic reviews in the development of new provincial public health policies in Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2004

Maureen Dobbins ,
Helen Thomas ,
Mary Ann O'Brien  and
Melissa Duggan
Maureen Dobbins
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Helen Thomas
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Mary Ann O'Brien
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Melissa Duggan
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The study determined whether the results of recently completed systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions were used in the development of new provincial policies for public health practice.

Methods: This telephone survey included all members from five review groups who updated the Ontario Mandatory Health Programs and Services guidelines for Public Health in 2000. Independent variables included characteristics of the systematic reviews, organization, and the individual. Outcomes included the use of the reviews in developing new policies and the extent to which the reviews led to new recommendations for practice. Descriptive summaries as well as multiple linear regression were conducted.

Results: Eighty-five percent of decision-makers agreed to participate in the study. Ninety-six percent of respondents reported that the systematic reviews played a part in developing the new guidelines, while 47 percent indicated that the reviews contributed a great deal to the development of new recommendations for practice. The multiple linear regression model explained 42 percent of the variation in use of the reviews for developing new recommendations for practice. Significant predictor variables included the importance of the reviews in comparison to other sources of information and relevance of the reviews to the policy decisions.

Conclusion: Public health decision-makers in Ontario have very positive perceptions of the usefulness of systematic reviews in policy development. Therefore, ongoing efforts to promote the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews to public health decision-makers should remain a priority for health services researchers.

Keywords

Evidence-based decision makingHealth policyPractice guidelinesPublic health
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2004 , pp. 399 - 404
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, et al. 1998; Closing the gap between research and practice: An overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 317: 465– 468.Google Scholar
Black N. 2001; Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. BMJ. 323: 275– 279.Google Scholar
Browne GB. 1999; Evidence that informs practice and policy: The role of strategic alliances at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. Can J Nurs Res. 31: 79– 94.Google Scholar
Dobbins M. 1999. Characteristics of the innovation, organization, environment and individual that facilitate the utilization of five systematic review among public health decision-makers in Ontario. Toronto: Graduate Department of Health Administration, University of Toronto;
Dobbins M, Ciliska D, DiCenso A. 1998. Dissemination and use of research evidence for policy and practice: A framework for developing, implementing and evaluating strategies. Ottawa: The Canadian Nurses Association;
Dobbins M, Cockerill R, Barnsley J. 2001; Factors affecting the utilization systematic reviews: A study of public health decision-makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 17: 203– 214.Google Scholar
Dobbins M, Cockerill R, Barnsley J, Ciliska D. 2001; Factors of the innovation, organization, environment, and individual that predict the influence five systematic reviews had on public health decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 17: 467– 478.Google Scholar
Edwards N, Lockett D, Gurd G, Leonard L. 2000. Effectiveness of internet-based dissemination of best practices for public health professionals. Ottawa: Office of Learning Technology;
1999. Effective Public Health Practice Project. Priority setting survey: PHRED systematic reviews. Hamilton: Effective Public Health Practice Project;
Funk SG, Champagne MT, Wiese RA, 1991; Tornquist EM. Barriers: The barriers to research utilization scale. Appl Nurs Res. 4: 39– 45.Google Scholar
Landry R, Amara N. 2001. The uptake of health research evidence by Canadian physicians.Prepared for the 4th International Conference on the Scientific Basis of Health Services. Quebec: University of Laval, Department of Political Science;
Landry R, Amara N, Laamary M. 2001; Utilization of social research science research knowledge in Canada. Res Policy. 30: 333– 349.Google Scholar
Lavis JN. 1999. Towards a new research transfer strategy for the Institute for Work and Health. Toronto, ON: Institute for Work and Health;
Lavis JN, Ross SE, Hohenadel J, et al. 2000. The role of health services research in Canadian provincial policy-making. 1997– 021;Google Scholar
Marriott S, Palmer C, Lelliott P. 2000; Disseminating healthcare information: Getting the message across. Qual Health Care. 9: 58– 62.Google Scholar
1997. National Forum on Health. Canada health action: Building on the legacy. Ottawa: National Forum on Health;
1989. Ontario Ministry of Health. Mandatory health programs and services guidelines. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario;
Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA, Hayes JE. 1995; No magic bullets: A systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. Can Med Assoc J. 153: 1423– 1431.Google Scholar
Polit DR. 1996. Data analysis and statistics for nursing research. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange;
Sackett D, Rosenberg WM, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, 1996; Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 312: 71– 72.Google Scholar
Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, Freemantle N, Harvey EL. 1997; Outreach visits to improve health professional practice and health care outcomes. The Cochrane Library.: 1– 15.Google Scholar
Woodward CA, Feldman W, Snider A. 1997; Health services researchers and decision-makers: Are there really two solitudes. Ann R Coll Phys Surg Canada. 30: 417– 423.Google Scholar