Plain English Summary
Background and study aims
Policy makers in health care need quick and easy access to reliable health systems evidence in order to make well-informed decisions. However, searching for health systems evidence can be challenging. To try to meet this challenge, PDQ-Evidence was launched in 2012. PDQ-Evidence is a freely available database with thousands of records to publications about health systems, including systematic reviews on how to organise, finance, and govern health systems. Its aim is to become the only database needed to search when looking for health systems evidence. This study tests if PDQ-Evidence is as ‘Pretty Darn Quick’ as it claims to be. It compares how quick and easy PDQ-Evidence is to search, and how well it performs when searching for systematic reviews compared to other databases that also provide access to systematic reviews about health systems evidence.
Who can participate?
Healthcare policy makers, health managers, health researchers and health professionals.
What does the study involve?
Participants complete an online questionnaire, including training and work experience, current position, first language, and prior experience with searching for health systems evidence. Participants try to find systematic reviews that addresses both a pre-defined and an own-defined health systems question, using PDQ-Evidence and two additional self-selected databases. Half of the participants receive a questionnaire where they search PDQ-Evidence before they search the two additional databases. The other half receives a questionnaire where they search PDQ-Evidence after they search the two additional databases. Participants use maximum 10 minutes per question to search for systematic reviews in each database. To report the evidence found that addresses the questions, participants report the title, author and year of maximum three relevant systematic reviews. They also report how much time they spend finding the reviews, and the perceived ease of use of each database they search. Finally, they give feedback on what they like, dislike, and find challenging about PDQ-Evidence, and suggest how PDQ-Evidence can be improved.
What are the possible benefits and risks of participating?
Participants get to know PDQ-Evidence, and to influence further development and improvements of the database. They are indirectly benefiting health care policy makers in need of easy and quick access to reliable health systems evidence. There is no risk associated with participating in this study, perhaps apart from the confiscated time it takes to answer the questionnaire.
Where is the study run from?
Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo (Norway)
When is the study starting and how long is it expected to run for?
November 2013 to June 2017
Who is funding the study?
1. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo (Norway)
2. European Commission Seventh Framework Programme (Belgium)
Who is the main contact?
Dr Andrew David Oxman
Study website
Contact information
Type
Public
Contact name
Dr Andrew David Oxman
ORCID ID
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5608-5061
Contact details
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
PO Box 4404
Nydalen
Oslo
N-0403
Norway
Type
Scientific
Contact name
Dr Andrew David Oxman
ORCID ID
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5608-5061
Contact details
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
PO Box 4404
Nydalen
Oslo
N-0403
Norway
Additional identifiers
EudraCT/CTIS number
IRAS number
ClinicalTrials.gov number
Protocol/serial number
N/A
Study information
Scientific title
A comparative evaluation of the PDQ-Evidence database: a crossover randomised controlled trial
Acronym
Study hypothesis
When searching for systematic reviews about health systems, PDQ-Evidence is more comprehensive, easier and quicker to use compared to the Cochrane Library, EVIPNet, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed, or Trip database.
Ethics approval(s)
Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, section South-East B, Oslo, Norway, 20/05/2014, ref: IRB 0000 1870
Study design
Single-centre crossover randomised controlled trial
Primary study design
Interventional
Secondary study design
Randomised cross over trial
Study setting(s)
Internet/virtual
Study type
Other
Patient information sheet
No participant information sheet available
Condition
Access to systematic reviews about health systems
Intervention
Searching for systematic reviews about health systems using PDQ-Evidence and two of the following databases/search engines: Cochrane Library, EVIPNet, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed, Trip database. Participants were randomised to either search PDQ-Evidence first or last.
Intervention type
Other
Primary outcome measure
1. Was a systematic review that addresses the question found (Yes/No)? For the comparison databases (the two databases selected by the participants) this outcome will be defined as: “Was a systematic review that addresses the question found in either of the two databases?”
2. Time taken to find a systematic review that addresses the question
Method: self reporting
Time: measured once
Secondary outcome measures
1. Number of relevant systematic reviews found
2. Assessments of the databases with four response options:
2.1. Ease of use (from very difficult to very easy)
2.2. Time spent on searching (from much too much time to very little time)
Method: self reporting
Time: measured once
Overall study start date
01/11/2013
Overall study end date
30/06/2017
Reason abandoned (if study stopped)
Eligibility
Participant inclusion criteria
1. Healthcare policy makers
2. Health managers
3. Health researchers
4. Health professionals
Participant type(s)
Health professional
Age group
Adult
Sex
Both
Target number of participants
94
Participant exclusion criteria
1. Not healthcare policy makers
2. Not health managers
3. Not health researchers
4. Not health professionals
Recruitment start date
03/11/2014
Recruitment end date
17/02/2015
Locations
Countries of recruitment
Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Malawi, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America
Study participating centre
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
PO Box 4404 Nydalen
Oslo
N-0403
Norway
Sponsor information
Organisation
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Sponsor details
PO Box 4404 Nydalen
Oslo
N-0403
Norway
+47 (0)23 25 50 00
post@nokc.no
Sponsor type
Government
Website
ROR
Funders
Funder type
Government
Funder name
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Alternative name(s)
Funding Body Type
Funding Body Subtype
Location
Funder name
Seventh Framework Programme
Alternative name(s)
EC Seventh Framework Programme, European Commission Seventh Framework Programme, EU Seventh Framework Programme, European Union Seventh Framework Programme, FP7
Funding Body Type
government organisation
Funding Body Subtype
National government
Location
Results and Publications
Publication and dissemination plan
Planned publication in a peer reviewed journal by the end of 2017.
Intention to publish date
31/12/2017
Individual participant data (IPD) sharing plan
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are/will be available upon request from: marit.johansen@fhi.no
IPD sharing plan summary
Available on request
Study outputs
| Output type | Details | Date created | Date added | Peer reviewed? | Patient-facing? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results article | results | 15/03/2018 | Yes | No |