Evidence for public health decision-making: towards reliable synthesis.
نویسنده
چکیده
a McCaughey Centre, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Vic., 3053, Australia. Correspondence to Elizabeth Waters (e-mail: [email protected]). Public health decision-makers are often overwhelmed with large quantities of data, evidence, reviews and summaries. As the volume of information increases, the need for trusted sources of synthesis becomes greater.1 If we recognize the need for good methods of summarizing research that address policy makers’ information needs in a reliable and timely manner, then how do we agree on what those methods are? This is a lively debate, resonant of earlier debates on alternative designs for evaluating interventions, that was polarized for many years around the merits or otherwise of the randomized controlled trial design.2 There is a danger that an equally polarized debate occurs here, around the merits or otherwise of systematic reviews. Using knowledge to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public health policy requires strengthening the links between synthesis, generation and translation of that knowledge. We need to understand the strengths and limitations of the knowledge we have, identify and fill gaps in the time available, and work in partnerships that comprise users and generators across all the relevant sectors.3,4 Doing so requires transparent and reproducible methods of research synthesis, where strength of evidence can be more easily judged. This is much more difficult when opaque review methods are used, where strength of opinion, rhetoric or resources can be the main determinants of the reviews’ findings and impact. It is generally acknowledged that systematic reviews, which apply highly restrictive inclusion criteria based on the strength of the internal validity of the research design, may be of limited value in public health. Such reviews may only be based on randomized trials of weak interventions, while more promising interventions are omitted due to the study design used. Similarly, unsystematic reviews, which include a biased selection of evaluation studies that are then synthesized in an uneven and subjective manner, will be of limited value if they risk reflecting the views of the author rather than the strength of the underlying evidence. However, focusing on these extremes with their inherent weaknesses blocks progress towards a more useful middle position. The key characteristic of a systematic review is its reproducibility, since it is a result of the application of systematic search and synthesis methods. The search method may include only randomized controlled trials where this is appropriate, but equally the search criteria may include any research method and define broad inclusion criteria such as research question, population or setting. Synthesis can be done as quantitative meta-analysis, but can also be done using other methods such as meta-ethnography or realist review. However, both the search and selection of included studies and the synthesis method need to be defined and reproducible. By applying search and synthesis methods in a systematic manner, the review can be reproduced by others, can be readily updated, and can be read and interpreted with confidence. It is not a defining characteristic of a systematic review that it only includes randomized trials, or even that it only focuses on questions of effectiveness. Recent developments in public health systematic reviews have provided new methods and infrastructure.5–7 For example, the Cochrane Public Health Review Group has developed specific expertise in searching for studies with a wider range of research designs to ensure better coverage of lowand middle-income countries. By including a wider range of research designs, public health reviews can become more useful for policy makers.8,9 If this approach continues to evolve it should serve lowand middle-income countries well by profiling the importance of equity and context when translating evidence from one situation to another.9–12 ■
منابع مشابه
Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness – A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study
Background The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decisio...
متن کاملUnderstanding Contextual Factors in Cost, Quality and Priority Setting Decisions in Health; Comment on “Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis”
There is growing recognition in the academic literature that critical decisions concerning resource allocation and resource management in health and care are influenced by a range of contextual factors. In their paper in this journal, Williams et al define these ‘decisions of value’ as being characterized by a significant and demonstrable impact on quality and resources in health and care. ‘Dec...
متن کاملDecisions of Value: Going Backstage; Comment on “Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis”
This commentary expands on two of the key themes briefly raised in the paper involving analysis of the evidence about key contextual influences on decisions of value. The first theme focuses on the need to explore in more detail what is called backstage decision-making looking at how actual decisions are made drawing on evidence from ethnographies about decision-making. These studies point to l...
متن کاملUse of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around The Globe
Background Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, a...
متن کاملSelecting the acceptance criteria of medicines in the reimbursement list of public health insurance of Iran, using the “Borda”method: a pilot study
Decision-making for medicines to be accepted in Iran’s public health insurance reimbursement list is a complex process and involves factors, which should be considered in applying a coverage for medicine costs. These processes and factors are not wholly assessed, while assessment of these factors is an essential need for getting a transparent and evidence-based approach toward medicine reimburs...
متن کاملSelecting the acceptance criteria of medicines in the reimbursement list of public health insurance of Iran, using the “Borda”method: a pilot study
Decision-making for medicines to be accepted in Iran’s public health insurance reimbursement list is a complex process and involves factors, which should be considered in applying a coverage for medicine costs. These processes and factors are not wholly assessed, while assessment of these factors is an essential need for getting a transparent and evidence-based approach toward medicine reimburs...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Bulletin of the World Health Organization
دوره 87 3 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2009