PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: It is unclear how to disseminate the results of randomised controlled trials effectively to health professionals and policymakers to improve treatment, care or prevention through changing policy and practice. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of different methods of dissemination of clinical research results to professional audiences.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published and grey literature from 2000 to 2022 for studies assessing different approaches for disseminating clinical study results to professional audiences (health professionals, policymakers and guideline developers). Two reviewers assessed potentially relevant full texts for inclusion. We grouped studies by intervention type, synthesising findings using effect direction plots. Outcomes were grouped into out-takes (e.g. awareness, knowledge, understanding), outcomes (e.g. attitude changes) and impact (changes in policy/practice). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS: Our search identified 13,264 unique records, of which 416 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Of 60 studies that were identified as eligible for inclusion, 20 evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to disseminate clinical research results (13 RCTs, 2 observational studies, 3 pre- and post-intervention surveys and 2 cross-sectional surveys). Studies were grouped by intervention: 7 studies that involved face-to-face meetings between the target audience and trained educators were classified as \'outreach interventions\'; 5 studies that provided a summary format for systematic review findings (e.g. summary of findings tables) were grouped together. There was high certainty evidence of a small beneficial impact of outreach interventions on health and moderate certainty evidence of impact on practice (mostly prescribing). There was no evidence of impact on policy and very low certainty around benefits on outcomes and out-takes. We found no consistent benefits of summary formats for systematic review results on outcomes or out-takes (moderate quality evidence). Other interventions with less evidence are reported in the Additional Materials.
CONCLUSIONS: Outreach interventions to disseminate clinical research results can lead to changes in practice and improvements in health. However, these interventions can be resource-intensive. Investment is vital to identify and implement effective and cost-effective ways to disseminate results, so that the potential benefits of trials to patients can be realised.
BACKGROUND: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42019137364.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published and grey literature from 2000 to 2022 for studies assessing different approaches for disseminating clinical study results to professional audiences (health professionals, policymakers and guideline developers). Two reviewers assessed potentially relevant full texts for inclusion. We grouped studies by intervention type, synthesising findings using effect direction plots. Outcomes were grouped into out-takes (e.g. awareness, knowledge, understanding), outcomes (e.g. attitude changes) and impact (changes in policy/practice). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS: Our search identified 13,264 unique records, of which 416 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Of 60 studies that were identified as eligible for inclusion, 20 evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to disseminate clinical research results (13 RCTs, 2 observational studies, 3 pre- and post-intervention surveys and 2 cross-sectional surveys). Studies were grouped by intervention: 7 studies that involved face-to-face meetings between the target audience and trained educators were classified as \'outreach interventions\'; 5 studies that provided a summary format for systematic review findings (e.g. summary of findings tables) were grouped together. There was high certainty evidence of a small beneficial impact of outreach interventions on health and moderate certainty evidence of impact on practice (mostly prescribing). There was no evidence of impact on policy and very low certainty around benefits on outcomes and out-takes. We found no consistent benefits of summary formats for systematic review results on outcomes or out-takes (moderate quality evidence). Other interventions with less evidence are reported in the Additional Materials.
CONCLUSIONS: Outreach interventions to disseminate clinical research results can lead to changes in practice and improvements in health. However, these interventions can be resource-intensive. Investment is vital to identify and implement effective and cost-effective ways to disseminate results, so that the potential benefits of trials to patients can be realised.
BACKGROUND: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42019137364.
摘要：
背景：目前尚不清楚如何将随机对照试验的结果有效地传播给卫生专业人员和政策制定者，以改善治疗，通过改变政策和做法进行护理或预防。本系统综述研究了向专业受众传播临床研究结果的不同方法的有效性。
方法：我们系统地回顾了2000年至2022年的已发表和灰色文献，以评估将临床研究结果传播给专业受众的不同方法（卫生专业人员，政策制定者和指导方针制定者)。两名审稿人评估了可能相关的全文以供纳入。我们按干预类型对研究进行分组，使用效果方向图综合发现。结果被分组为外购(例如，意识，知识,理解)，结果(如态度变化)和影响(政策/实践的变化)。使用GRADE评估证据质量。
结果：我们的搜索确定了13,264条独特记录，其中416篇全文被评估为合格性。在被确定为有资格纳入的60项研究中，20项评估了干预措施传播临床研究结果的有效性(13项随机对照试验，2观察性研究，3次干预前后调查和2次横断面调查)。研究按干预措施分组：7项涉及目标受众和受过训练的教育工作者之间面对面会议的研究被归类为“外展干预措施”；5项研究提供了系统审查结果的摘要格式（例如，结果表摘要）被分组在一起。有高度确定性的证据表明，外展干预措施对健康的有益影响很小，而对实践的影响则有中等确定性的证据（主要是处方）。没有证据表明对政策有影响，而且对结果和收益的确定性很低。我们发现总结格式对结局或结果的系统评价结果没有一致的益处（中等质量证据）。其他证据较少的干预措施在附加材料中报告。
结论：传播临床研究结果的外联干预措施可以导致实践的改变和健康状况的改善。然而,这些干预措施可能是资源密集型的。投资对于确定和实施有效和具有成本效益的传播成果的方法至关重要，以便可以实现试验对患者的潜在益处。
背景：国际前瞻性系统审查注册（PROSPERO），CRD42019137364。
方法：我们系统地回顾了2000年至2022年的已发表和灰色文献，以评估将临床研究结果传播给专业受众的不同方法（卫生专业人员，政策制定者和指导方针制定者)。两名审稿人评估了可能相关的全文以供纳入。我们按干预类型对研究进行分组，使用效果方向图综合发现。结果被分组为外购(例如，意识，知识,理解)，结果(如态度变化)和影响(政策/实践的变化)。使用GRADE评估证据质量。
结果：我们的搜索确定了13,264条独特记录，其中416篇全文被评估为合格性。在被确定为有资格纳入的60项研究中，20项评估了干预措施传播临床研究结果的有效性(13项随机对照试验，2观察性研究，3次干预前后调查和2次横断面调查)。研究按干预措施分组：7项涉及目标受众和受过训练的教育工作者之间面对面会议的研究被归类为“外展干预措施”；5项研究提供了系统审查结果的摘要格式（例如，结果表摘要）被分组在一起。有高度确定性的证据表明，外展干预措施对健康的有益影响很小，而对实践的影响则有中等确定性的证据（主要是处方）。没有证据表明对政策有影响，而且对结果和收益的确定性很低。我们发现总结格式对结局或结果的系统评价结果没有一致的益处（中等质量证据）。其他证据较少的干预措施在附加材料中报告。
结论：传播临床研究结果的外联干预措施可以导致实践的改变和健康状况的改善。然而,这些干预措施可能是资源密集型的。投资对于确定和实施有效和具有成本效益的传播成果的方法至关重要，以便可以实现试验对患者的潜在益处。
背景：国际前瞻性系统审查注册（PROSPERO），CRD42019137364。
