ITEM VIEW

A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence

dc.contributor.authorJohansen, Mariten_ZA
dc.contributor.authorRada, Gabrielen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorRosenbaum, Sarahen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorPaulsen, Elizabethen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorMotaze, Nkengafac V.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorOpiyo, Newtonen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorWiysonge, Charles S.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorDing, Yunpengen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorMukinda, Fidele K.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorOxman, Andrew D.en_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-19T06:01:57Z
dc.date.available2018-03-19T06:01:57Z
dc.date.issued2018-03-15
dc.identifier.citationJohansen, M., et al. 2018. A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16:27, doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8
dc.identifier.issn1478-4505 (online)
dc.identifier.otherdoi:10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/103233
dc.descriptionCITATION: Johansen, M., et al. 2018. A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16:27, doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8.
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com
dc.description.abstractA 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.
dc.description.urihttps://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8
dc.format.extent14 pages
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherBioMed Central
dc.subjectHealth policy
dc.titleA comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidenceen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
dc.date.updated2018-03-18T04:12:49Z
dc.description.versionPublisher's version
dc.rights.holderAuthor retains copyright


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

ITEM VIEW