Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36966293›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Decision-makers' experiences with rapid evidence summaries to support real-time evidence informed decision-making in crises: a mixed methods study.

Ahmad Firas Khalid, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Nandana D Parakh, Rana Charide, Faiza Rab, Salim Sohani

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Making sense of shaky data in humanitarian crises.Frontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of evidence-informed practice in respiratory therapy: A cross-sectional survey.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ahmad Firas KhalidCentre for Implementation Research, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Fellowship, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. ahkhalid@ohri.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8525-2455
Jeremy M GrimshawCentre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Nandana D ParakhFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Rana CharideDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Faiza RabHealth in Emergencies, Canadian Red Cross, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Salim SohaniHealth in Emergencies, Canadian Red Cross, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 177493
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a clear need for research evidence to drive policymaking and emergency responses so that lives are saved and resources are not wasted. The need for evidence support for health and humanitarian crisis is even more pertinent because of the time and practical constraints that decision-makers in these settings face. To improve the use of research evidence in policy and practice, it is important to provide evidence resources tailored to the target audience. This study aims to gain real-world insights from decision-makers about how they use evidence summaries to inform real-time decision-making in crisis-settings, and to use our findings to improve the format of evidence summaries.

methodsThis study used an explanatory sequential mixed method study design. First, we used a survey to identify the views and experiences of those who were directly involved in crisis response in different contexts, and who may or may not have used evidence summaries. Second, we used the insights generated from the survey to help inform qualitative interviews with decision-makers in crisis-settings to derive an in-depth understanding of how they use evidence summaries and their desired format for evidence summaries.

resultsWe interviewed 26 decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies. The study identified challenges decision-makers face when trying to find and use research evidence in crises, including insufficient time and increased burden of responsibilities during crises, limited access to reliable internet connection, large volume of data not translated into user friendly summaries, and little information available on preparedness and response measures. Decision-makers preferred the following components in evidence summaries: title, target audience, presentation of key findings in an actionable checklist or infographic format, implementation considerations, assessment of the quality of evidence presented, citation and hyperlink to the full review, funding sources, language of full review, and other sources of information on the topic. Our study developed an evidence summary template with accompanying training material to inform real-time decision-making in crisis-settings.

conclusionsOur study provided a deeper understanding of the preferences of decision-makers working in health and humanitarian emergencies about the format of evidence summaries to enable real-time evidence informed decision-making.

Indexed as

EmergenciesEvidence-Based MedicineDecision MakingHumansPolicy MakingResearch DesignDataEvidenceEvidence-informed decision-makingEvidence summariesKnowledge translationScience communication

Identifiers

PMID36966293
PMCPMC10039327

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read18
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.