Qualitative evaluation of two web-based tools to improve accessibility of evidence reports

IF 2.6 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Kathryn A. Paez, Rachel Shapiro, Lee Thompson
{"title":"Qualitative evaluation of two web-based tools to improve accessibility of evidence reports","authors":"Kathryn A. Paez,&nbsp;Rachel Shapiro,&nbsp;Lee Thompson","doi":"10.1002/lrh2.10341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program produces evidence reports to assist health systems in improving patient care. To make EPC evidence reports more accessible and usable, AHRQ convened a panel of learning health system (LHS) senior leaders to develop two web-based tools—a table-based tool presenting high-level results, and a graphical display that presented detailed data—to disseminate the reports and test the tools. Researchers examined (1) the context under which interview participants reviewed and used the evidence reported by the tools, (2) their experiences using the tools, (3) the tools' influence on clinical practice, and (4) how the tools could be improved.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Researchers collected and inductively analyzed qualitative data from tool implementation meetings with six LHSs and interviews with 27 LHS leaders and clinical staff who used the tools. Researchers used website utilization metrics to augment qualitative results.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The tools were efficient, complementary, and useful sources of summarized evidence to promote system change, educate trainees and clinicians, inform research, and support shared decision making with patients and families. Clinical leaders appreciated the evidence review thoroughness and quality and viewed AHRQ as a trusted source of information. However, many felt the tools were not practical for bedside use because of their complex content. Participants also noted the reports had limited evidence strength and robustness. They suggested optimizing the tools for mobile device use to facilitate tool uptake and developing training resources about tool navigation and statistical content interpretation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>LHSs found the tools to be useful resources for making the EPC Program reports more accessible to and usable for health system leaders. The tools have the potential to meet some, but not all, LHS evidence needs. Their value depends on reports' usefulness, which ultimately depends on the evidence quality.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":43916,"journal":{"name":"Learning Health Systems","volume":"7 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lrh2.10341","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lrh2.10341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program produces evidence reports to assist health systems in improving patient care. To make EPC evidence reports more accessible and usable, AHRQ convened a panel of learning health system (LHS) senior leaders to develop two web-based tools—a table-based tool presenting high-level results, and a graphical display that presented detailed data—to disseminate the reports and test the tools. Researchers examined (1) the context under which interview participants reviewed and used the evidence reported by the tools, (2) their experiences using the tools, (3) the tools' influence on clinical practice, and (4) how the tools could be improved.

Methods

Researchers collected and inductively analyzed qualitative data from tool implementation meetings with six LHSs and interviews with 27 LHS leaders and clinical staff who used the tools. Researchers used website utilization metrics to augment qualitative results.

Results

The tools were efficient, complementary, and useful sources of summarized evidence to promote system change, educate trainees and clinicians, inform research, and support shared decision making with patients and families. Clinical leaders appreciated the evidence review thoroughness and quality and viewed AHRQ as a trusted source of information. However, many felt the tools were not practical for bedside use because of their complex content. Participants also noted the reports had limited evidence strength and robustness. They suggested optimizing the tools for mobile device use to facilitate tool uptake and developing training resources about tool navigation and statistical content interpretation.

Conclusions

LHSs found the tools to be useful resources for making the EPC Program reports more accessible to and usable for health system leaders. The tools have the potential to meet some, but not all, LHS evidence needs. Their value depends on reports' usefulness, which ultimately depends on the evidence quality.

Abstract Image

改进证据报告可及性的两个基于网络的工具的定性评价
医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)循证实践中心(EPC)项目编制证据报告,以帮助卫生系统改善患者护理。为了使EPC证据报告更易于访问和使用,AHRQ召集了一个学习健康系统(LHS)高级领导小组,开发了两个基于网络的工具——一个是基于表格的工具,提供高水平的结果,另一个是图形显示,提供详细的数据——以传播报告并测试工具。研究人员检查了(1)访谈参与者审查和使用工具报告的证据的背景,(2)他们使用工具的经历,(3)工具对临床实践的影响,以及(4)如何改进工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Learning Health Systems
Learning Health Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
22.60%
发文量
55
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信