A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence

 

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Johansen, Marit
dc.contributor.author Rada, Gabriel
dc.contributor.author Rosenbaum, Sarah
dc.contributor.author Paulsen, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.author Motaze, Nkengafac V
dc.contributor.author Opiyo, Newton
dc.contributor.author Wiysonge, Charles S
dc.contributor.author Ding, Yunpeng
dc.contributor.author Mukinda, Fidele K
dc.contributor.author Oxman, Andrew D
dc.date.accessioned 2018-05-07T09:21:24Z
dc.date.available 2018-05-07T09:21:24Z
dc.date.issued 2018-03-15
dc.identifier.citation Johansen, M., Rada, G., Rosenbaum, S., Paulsen, E., Motaze, N. V., Opiyo, N., ... & Oxman, A. D. (2018). A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence. Health research policy and systems, 16(1), 27.
dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11427/27959
dc.description.abstract Background A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. Methods We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Results A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. Conclusions PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher BioMed Central
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.source Health Research Policy and Systems
dc.source.uri https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/
dc.subject.other Health policy
dc.subject.other Health systems
dc.subject.other Systematic reviews
dc.subject.other Evidence-informed health policy
dc.subject.other Comparative study
dc.subject.other Bibliographic databases
dc.subject.other Clearing house
dc.subject.other Search engine
dc.subject.other Database searching
dc.subject.other Search strategies
dc.subject.other Information retrieval
dc.title A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence
dc.type Journal Article
dc.date.updated 2018-04-09T15:12:04Z
dc.rights.holder The Author(s).
dc.publisher.institution University of Cape Town
dc.publisher.faculty Faculty of Health Sciences en_ZA
dc.publisher.department Department of Public Health and Family Medicine en_ZA
uct.type.filetype Text
uct.type.filetype Image
dc.identifier.apacitation Johansen, M., Rada, G., Rosenbaum, S., Paulsen, E., Motaze, N. V., Opiyo, N., ... Oxman, A. D. (2018). A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence. <i>Health Research Policy and Systems</i>, http://hdl.handle.net/11427/27959 en_ZA
dc.identifier.chicagocitation Johansen, Marit, Gabriel Rada, Sarah Rosenbaum, Elizabeth Paulsen, Nkengafac V Motaze, Newton Opiyo, Charles S Wiysonge, Yunpeng Ding, Fidele K Mukinda, and Andrew D Oxman "A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence." <i>Health Research Policy and Systems</i> (2018) http://hdl.handle.net/11427/27959 en_ZA
dc.identifier.vancouvercitation Johansen M, Rada G, Rosenbaum S, Paulsen E, Motaze NV, Opiyo N, et al. A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2018; http://hdl.handle.net/11427/27959. en_ZA
dc.identifier.ris TY - Journal Article AU - Johansen, Marit AU - Rada, Gabriel AU - Rosenbaum, Sarah AU - Paulsen, Elizabeth AU - Motaze, Nkengafac V AU - Opiyo, Newton AU - Wiysonge, Charles S AU - Ding, Yunpeng AU - Mukinda, Fidele K AU - Oxman, Andrew D AB - Background A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. Methods We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Results A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. Conclusions PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 . DA - 2018-03-15 DB - OpenUCT DO - 10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8 DP - University of Cape Town J1 - Health Research Policy and Systems LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PB - University of Cape Town PY - 2018 T1 - A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence TI - A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/27959 ER - en_ZA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/