| Title |
Evaluation of a training program for medicines-oriented policymakers to use a database of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-016-0140-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heather L. Colquhoun, Dianne Lowe, Eftyhia Helis, Denis Belanger, Brendalynn Ens, Sophie Hill, Alain Mayhew, Michael Taylor, Jeremy M. Grimshaw |
| Abstract |
Suboptimal prescribing and medications use is a problem for health systems globally. Systematic reviews are a comprehensive resource that can help guide evidence-informed decision-making and implementation of interventions addressing such issues; however, a barrier to the use of systematic reviews is their inaccessibility (due to both dispersion across journals and inaccessibility of content). Publicly available databases, such as Rx for Change, provide quick access to summaries of appraised systematic reviews of professional and consumer-oriented interventions to improve prescribing behaviour and appropriate medication use, and may help maximise the use of evidence to inform decisions. The present study aims to evaluate a training program to improve attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of systematic review evidence contained within Rx for Change. Guided by the Knowledge to Action framework, a training program with content customised to local provider and consumer contexts was developed with knowledge user input. The training program consisted of a 6 minute information video, a 1 hour workshop with hands-on, interactive and didactic components, and two post-training reminders. Forty-nine people from five medicines-focused organisations in Canada and Australia attended one of six workshops. Participants were surveyed immediately pre and post and 3 months after training to evaluate their attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of Rx for Change, and attitudes towards and confidence in skills for using evidence for decision-making. Analyses for differences for each of the outcomes at three time points (pre, post and 3 months after training) was performed using a random effects model. Immediately post-training, there were higher respondent attitudes towards Rx for Change (mean increase = 0.54 out of 5, 95% CI, 0.18-0.83, P < 0.005); intention to use Rx for Change (0.53, 95% CI, 0.21-0.86, P < 0.005); confidence in skills for using Rx for Change (2.08, 95% CI, 1.74-2.42, P < 0.005); and confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making (0.50, 95% CI, 0.22-0.77, P < .005) compared to pre-training. Confidence in skills for using both Rx for Change and evidence were maintained 3 months after training (both P < 0.005). Participants of this training program reported sustained improvements in their confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making. This may have important implications for uptake of systematic review evidence promoting improved prescribing and medication use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Somalia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Librarian | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,034,483
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#928
of 1,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,974
of 322,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.