Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

The views of health guideline developers on the use of automation in health evidence synthesis

Authors: Anneliese Arno, Julian Elliott, Byron Wallace, Tari Turner, James Thomas

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The increasingly rapid rate of evidence publication has made it difficult for evidence synthesis—systematic reviews and health guidelines—to be continually kept up to date. One proposed solution for this is the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. Guideline developers are key gatekeepers in the acceptance and use of evidence, and therefore, their opinions on the potential use of automation are crucial.

Methods

The objective of this study was to analyze the attitudes of guideline developers towards the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. The Diffusion of Innovations framework was chosen as an initial analytical framework because it encapsulates some of the core issues which are thought to affect the adoption of new innovations in practice. This well-established theory posits five dimensions which affect the adoption of novel technologies: Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity, Trialability, and Observability. Eighteen interviews were conducted with individuals who were currently working, or had previously worked, in guideline development. After transcription, a multiphase mixed deductive and grounded approach was used to analyze the data. First, transcripts were coded with a deductive approach using Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation as the top-level themes. Second, sub-themes within the framework were identified using a grounded approach.

Results

Participants were consistently most concerned with the extent to which an innovation is in line with current values and practices (i.e., Compatibility in the Diffusion of Innovations framework). Participants were also concerned with Relative Advantage and Observability, which were discussed in approximately equal amounts. For the latter, participants expressed a desire for transparency in the methodology of automation software. Participants were noticeably less interested in Complexity and Trialability, which were discussed infrequently. These results were reasonably consistent across all participants.

Conclusions

If machine learning and other automation technologies are to be used more widely and to their full potential in systematic reviews and guideline development, it is crucial to ensure new technologies are in line with current values and practice. It will also be important to maximize the transparency of the methods of these technologies to address the concerns of guideline developers.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Shojania KG, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):224–33.PubMedCrossRef Shojania KG, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):224–33.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):163.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):163.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Thomas J, et al. Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:31–7.PubMedCrossRef Thomas J, et al. Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:31–7.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference van Altena AJ, Spijker R, Olabarriaga SD. Usage of automation tools in systematic reviews. Res Synthesis Methods. 2019;10(1):72–82.CrossRef van Altena AJ, Spijker R, Olabarriaga SD. Usage of automation tools in systematic reviews. Res Synthesis Methods. 2019;10(1):72–82.CrossRef
8.
9.
go back to reference Rogers. E.M. Simon and Schuster: Diffusion of innovations; 2010. Rogers. E.M. Simon and Schuster: Diffusion of innovations; 2010.
11.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V, Terry G. Thematic analysis. Qual Res Clin Health Psychol. 2014;24:95–114. Braun V, Clarke V, Terry G. Thematic analysis. Qual Res Clin Health Psychol. 2014;24:95–114.
12.
go back to reference Gale NK, et al. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):117.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gale NK, et al. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):117.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Thomas J. Diffusion of innovation in systematic review methodology: why is study selection not yet assisted by automation. OA Evid Based Med. 2013;1(2):1–6.CrossRef Thomas J. Diffusion of innovation in systematic review methodology: why is study selection not yet assisted by automation. OA Evid Based Med. 2013;1(2):1–6.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference O’Connor AM, et al. Still moving toward automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the third meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef O’Connor AM, et al. Still moving toward automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the third meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
go back to reference David H. Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29(3):3–30.CrossRef David H. Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29(3):3–30.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Acharya AS, et al. Sampling: why and how of it. Indian J Med Specialties. 2013;4(2):330–3. Acharya AS, et al. Sampling: why and how of it. Indian J Med Specialties. 2013;4(2):330–3.
18.
go back to reference Rashid A, et al. Patient and public involvement in the development of healthcare guidance: an overview of current methods and future challenges. Patient. 2017;10(3):277–82.PubMedCrossRef Rashid A, et al. Patient and public involvement in the development of healthcare guidance: an overview of current methods and future challenges. Patient. 2017;10(3):277–82.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The views of health guideline developers on the use of automation in health evidence synthesis
Authors
Anneliese Arno
Julian Elliott
Byron Wallace
Tari Turner
James Thomas
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01569-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Systematic Reviews 1/2021 Go to the issue