NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Related Evidence
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 213
Investigators: Lauren McCormack, PhD, MSPH, Stacey Sheridan, MD, MPH, Megan Lewis, PhD, Vanessa Boudewyns, PhD, Cathy L Melvin, DrPH, Christine Kistler, MD, MASc, Linda J Lux, MPA, Katherine Cullen, BA, and Kathleen N Lohr, PhD, MPhil, MA.
Author Information and AffiliationsStructured Abstract
Objectives:
This review examined how to best communicate and disseminate evidence, including uncertain evidence, to inform health care decisions. The review focused on three primary objectives—comparing the effectiveness of: (1) communicating evidence in various contents and formats that increase the likelihood that target audiences will both understand and use the information (KQ 1); (2) a variety of approaches for disseminating evidence from those who develop it to those who are expected to use it (KQ 2); and (3) various ways of communicating uncertainty-associated health-related evidence to different target audiences (KQ 3). A secondary objective was to examine how the effectiveness of communication and dissemination strategies varies across target audiences, including evidence translators, health educators, patients, and clinicians.
Data sources:
We searched MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Trials Registry, PsycINFO®, and the Web of Science. We used a variety of medical subject headings (MeSH terms) and major headings, and used free-text and title and abstract text-word searches. The search was limited to studies on humans published from 2000 to March 15, 2013, for communication and dissemination, given the prior systematic reviews, and from 1966 to March 15, 2013, for communicating uncertainty.
Review methods:
We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and abstractions, and quality ratings and group consensus to resolve disagreements. We used group consensus to grade strength of evidence.
Results:
The search identified 4,152 articles (after removing duplicates) for all three KQs. After dual review at the title/abstract stage and full-text review stage, we retained 61 articles that directly (i.e., head to head) compared strategies to communicate and disseminate evidence. Across the KQs, many of the comparisons yielded insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions. For KQ 1, we found that investigators frequently blend more than one communication strategy in interventions. For KQ 2, we found that, compared with single dissemination strategies, multicomponent dissemination strategies are more effective at enhancing clinician behavior, particularly for guideline adherence. Key findings for KQ 3 indicate that evidence on communicating overall strength of recommendation and precision was insufficient, but certain ways of communicating directness and net benefit may be helpful in reducing uncertainty.
Conclusions:
The lack of comparative research evidence to inform communication and dissemination of evidence, including uncertain evidence, impedes timely clinician, patient, and policymaker awareness, uptake, and use of evidence to improve the quality of care. Expanding investment in communication, dissemination, and implementation research is critical to the identification of strategies to accelerate the translation of comparative effectiveness research into community and clinical practice and the direct benefit of patient care.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Key Informants
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results—Key Question 1: Communication Strategies
- Results—Key Question 2: Dissemination Strategies to Clinicians and Patients
- Results—Key Question 3: Communicating Uncertainty
- Discussion
- References
- Appendix A. Sources of Uncertainty Mentioned in Existing Taxonomies of Uncertainty
- Appendix B. Search Strategies
- Appendix C. Excluded Studies
- Appendix D. Risk of Bias Tables
- Appendix E. Evidence Tables for Key Question 1
- Appendix F. Evidence Tables for Key Question 2
- Appendix G. Evidence Tables for Key Question 3
Suggested citation:
McCormack L, Sheridan S, Lewis M, Boudewyns V, Melvin CL, Kistler C, Lux LJ, Cullen K, Lohr KN. Communication and Dissemination Strategies To Facilitate the Use of Health-Related Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 213. (Prepared by the RTI International–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10056-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 13(14)-E003-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; November 2013. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCERTA213.
This report is based on research conducted by the RTI International–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10056-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
This report may periodically be assessed for the urgency to update. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.[Med J Aust. 2020]Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Osborne SR, Alston LV, Bolton KA, Whelan J, Reeve E, Wong Shee A, Browne J, Walker T, Versace VL, Allender S, et al. Med J Aust. 2020 Dec; 213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1.
- The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.[JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009]The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.Allen D, Gillen E, Rixson L. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009; 7(3):80-129.
- The future of Cochrane Neonatal.[Early Hum Dev. 2020]The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov; 150:105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
- Review Screening for High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2014]Review Screening for High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForcePiper MA, Evans CV, Burda BU, Margolis KL, O’Connor E, Smith N, Webber E, Perdue LA, Bigler KD, Whitlock EP. 2014 Dec
- Review Behavioral Counseling to Promote a Healthful Diet and Physical Activity for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Adults Without Known Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2017]Review Behavioral Counseling to Promote a Healthful Diet and Physical Activity for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Adults Without Known Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForcePatnode CD, Evans CV, Senger CA, Redmond N, Lin JS. 2017 Jul
- Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Relat...Communication and Dissemination Strategies to Facilitate the Use of Health-Related Evidence
- Vitamin D and CalciumVitamin D and Calcium
- Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (...Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 5: Asthma Care)
- Technology Assessment of Molecular Pathology Testing for the Estimation of Progn...Technology Assessment of Molecular Pathology Testing for the Estimation of Prognosis for Common Cancers
- Screening for Breast CancerScreening for Breast Cancer
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...