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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision-Making in Public Health Crises: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography.Public health challenges · 2026Review
- 'This is not our mandate': a qualitative case study on the resilience of a humanitarian health programme in Lebanon.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- Mapping health system resilience in federal Nepal: perspectives and lessons from local government level.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Data-Driven Infectious Disease Control: Qualitative Study of Professionals' Attitudes, Barriers, and Needs.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Phenomenological study on decision fatigue among surrogate decision-makers for ICU patients.Medicine · 2025Article
- Strengthening public health education and humanitarian response through academic volunteerism.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Addressing evidence needs during health crises in the province of Quebec (Canada): a proposed action plan for rapid evidence synthesis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Making sense of shaky data in humanitarian crises.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- ChatGPT in cardiovascular medicine: revolution, hype, or helper?Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- 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 · 2025Article
- Lessons learned from COVID-19 modelling efforts for policy decision-making in lower- and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Evaluation of implementation of evidence-based public health training in sub-Saharan Africa.Journal of public health in Africa · 2024Article
- Assessing the impact of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission in German schools on decision-making processes: a multi-component qualitative analysis.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.