A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence
dc.contributor.author | Johansen, Marit | en_ZA |
dc.contributor.author | Rada, Gabriel | en_ZA |
dc.contributor.author | Rosenbaum, Sarah | en_ZA |
dc.contributor.author | Paulsen, Elizabeth | en_ZA |
dc.contributor.author | Motaze, Nkengafac Vilyen | en_ZA |
dc.contributor.author | Opiyo, Newton | en_ZA |
dc.contributor.author | Wiysonge, Charles S. | en_ZA |
dc.contributor.author | Ding, Yunpeng | en_ZA |
dc.contributor.author | Mukinda, Fidele K. | en_ZA |
dc.contributor.author | Oxman, Andrew D. | en_ZA |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-03-19T06:01:57Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-03-19T06:01:57Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2018-03-15 | |
dc.date.updated | 2018-03-18T04:12:49Z | |
dc.description | CITATION: 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.description | The original publication is available at https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com | |
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 highincome 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. | en |
dc.description.uri | https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8 | |
dc.description.version | Publisher's version | |
dc.format.extent | 14 pages ; illustrations | |
dc.identifier.citation | 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.identifier.issn | 1478-4505 (online) | |
dc.identifier.other | doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/103233 | |
dc.language.iso | en_ZA | en_ZA |
dc.publisher | BioMed Central | |
dc.rights.holder | Author retains copyright | |
dc.subject | Medical policy | |
dc.subject | Medicine -- Research -- Databases | en_ZA |
dc.subject | Systematic reviews (Medical research) | en_ZA |
dc.title | A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence | en_ZA |
dc.type | Article | en_ZA |