Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Policymaker experiences with rapid response briefs to address health-system and technology questions in Uganda

Authors: Rhona Mijumbi-Deve, Sarah E. Rosenbaum, Andrew D. Oxman, John N. Lavis, Nelson K. Sewankambo

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Health service and systems researchers have developed knowledge translation strategies to facilitate the use of reliable evidence for policy, including rapid response briefs as timely and responsive tools supporting decision making. However, little is known about users’ experience with these newer formats for presenting evidence. We sought to explore Ugandan policymakers’ experience with rapid response briefs in order to develop a format acceptable for policymakers.

Methods

We used existing research regarding evidence formats for policymakers to inform the initial version of rapid response brief format. We conducted user testing with healthcare policymakers at various levels of decision making in Uganda, employing a concurrent think-aloud method, collecting data on elements including usability, usefulness, understandability, desirability, credibility and value of the document. We modified the rapid response briefs format based on the results of the user testing and sought feedback on the new format.

Results

The participants generally found the format of the rapid response briefs usable, credible, desirable and of value. Participants expressed frustrations regarding several aspects of the document, including the absence of recommendations, lack of clarity about the type of document and its potential uses (especially for first time users), and a crowded front page. Participants offered conflicting feedback on preferred length of the briefs and use and placement of partner logos. Users had divided preferences for the older and newer formats.

Conclusion

Although the rapid response briefs were generally found to be of value, there are major and minor frustrations impeding an optimal user experience. Areas requiring further research include how to address policymakers’ expectations of recommendations in these briefs and their optimal length.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
World Health Organization. The Bamako Call to Action on Research for Health: Strengthening Research for Health, Development, and Equity. Bamako: The Global Ministerial Forum on Research for Health; 2008.
5.
Carden F. Knowledge to Policy: Making the Most of Development Research. Ottawa: IDRC/SAGE; 2009.
6.
Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:239–44.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions. BMJ Open. 2012;2(5). doi:10.​1136/​bmjopen-2012-001220.
8.
Oliver K, Innvaer S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. Barriers and Facilitators of the Use of Evidence by Policy Makers: An Updated Systematic Review. In: Second Conference on Knowledge Exchange in Public Health. Noorwijkhout: Holland Fuse Conference: How to Get Practice into Science; 2013.
9.
Shearer JC, Dion M, Lavis J. Exchanging and using research evidence in health policy networks: a statistical network analysis. Implement Sci. 2014;9:126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis J, Tremblay E. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):444–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Lavis J, Oxman A, Moynihan R, Paulsen E. Evidence-informed health policy 1 - synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence. Implement Sci. 2008;3:53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis J, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10 Suppl 1:35–48.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
15.
16.
Riley B, Norman CD, Best A. A rapid review using systems thinking. Evid Policy. 2012;8(4):417–31.CrossRef
17.
Mijumbi RM, Oxman AD, Panisset U, Sewankambo NK. Feasibility of a rapid response mechanism to meet policymakers’ urgent needs for research evidence about health systems in a low income country: a case study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
19.
20.
Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Wiysonge CS, Abalos E, Mignini L, Young T, et al. Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:54–61.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Faulkner L. Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003;35(3):379–83.CrossRefPubMed
22.
van den Haak M, De Jong M, Schellens PJ. Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behav Inform Technol. 2003;22(5):339–51.CrossRef
23.
Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Cracknell J. User experiences of evidence-based online resources for health professionals: user testing of The Cochrane Library. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(6):607–19.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Giguere A, Legare F, Grad R, Pluye P, Rousseau F, Haynes RB, et al. Developing and user-testing Decision boxes to facilitate shared decision making in primary care - a study protocol. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Yu CH, Parsons JA, Hall S, Newton D, Jovicic A, Lottridge D, et al. User-centered design of a web-based self-management site for individuals with type 2 diabetes – providing a sense of control and community. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Dorfman CS, Williams RM, Kassan EC, Red SN, Dawson DL, Tuong W, et al. The development of a web- and a print-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Nielsen J. Usability Testing, Usability Engineering. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 1994. p. 165–206.
29.
Krahmer E, Ummelen N. Thinking about thinking aloud: a comparison of two verbal protocols for usability testing. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2004;47(2):105–17.CrossRef
30.
Virzi RA. Measurement in human factors. Hum Factors. 1992;34(4):457–68.
31.
Nielsen J, Landauer TK, editors. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Amsterdam: ACM INTERCHI'93 Conference; 1993.
32.
33.
34.
Rosenbaum S. Improving the User Experience of Evidence. A Design Approach to Evidence-informed Health Care. Oslo College of Architecture and Design: Oslo; 2010.
35.
Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Macintyre S, Graham H, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: the reality according to policymakers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:811–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
von Grebmer K. Chapter 21: Converting Policy Research into Policy Decisions: The Role of Communication and the Media. In: Babu SC, Ashok G, editors. Economic Reforms and Food Security: The Impact of Trade and Technology in South Asia. New York: Haworth Press, Inc. pp. 455–9.
37.
Dabelko GD. Speaking their language: how to communicate better with policymakers and opinion shapers – and why academics should bother in the first place. Int Environ Agreements. 2005;5:381–6.CrossRef
38.
Bogenschneider K, Corbett TJ. Evidence-Based Policymaking: Insights from Policy-Minded Researchers and Research-Minded Policymakers. London: Routledge; 2011. p. 368.
39.
40.
Moat KA, Lavis JN, Clancy SJ, El-Jardali FE-J, Pantoja T. Team ftKTPEs. Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(1):20–8.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(6):620–6.CrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
Cooke L. Assessing concurrent think-aloud protocol as a usability test method: a technical communication approach. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2010;53(3):201–15.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Policymaker experiences with rapid response briefs to address health-system and technology questions in Uganda
Authors
Rhona Mijumbi-Deve
Sarah E. Rosenbaum
Andrew D. Oxman
John N. Lavis
Nelson K. Sewankambo
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0200-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Validity and reliability of the Evidence Utilisation in Policymaking Measurement Tool (EUPMT)

Commentary

Development of the Good Health Research Practice course: ensuring quality across all health research in humans

Research

Determinants analysis of outpatient service utilisation in Georgia: can the approach help inform benefit package design?

Editorial

‘Knowledge for better health’ revisited – the increasing significance of health research systems: a review by departing Editors-in-Chief

Opinion

Evidence-based decision-making for diagnostic and therapeutic methods: the changing landscape of assessment approaches in Germany

Review

How do we define the policy impact of public health research? A systematic review