dc.contributor.author | Johansen, Marit | |
dc.contributor.author | Rada, Gabriel | |
dc.contributor.author | Rosenbaum, Sarah | |
dc.contributor.author | Paulsen, Elizabeth | |
dc.contributor.author | Motaze, Nkengafac Villyen | |
dc.contributor.author | Opiyo, Newton | |
dc.contributor.author | Wiysonge, Charles S. | |
dc.contributor.author | Ding, Yunpeng | |
dc.contributor.author | Mukinda, Fidele K. | |
dc.contributor.author | Oxman, Andrew D. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-03-27T11:02:41Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-03-27T11:02:41Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Johansen, M. et al. (2018). A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16: 27 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1478-4505 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10566/3584 | |
dc.description.abstract | BACKGROUND: A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system
evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’
search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence
to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed
and Trip.
METHODS: We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and highincome
countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic
review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the
other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search
PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic
review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived
time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges
and suggestions for improvements.
RESULTS: A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses
and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and
Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using
PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this
difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants
perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the
two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However,
using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | BioMed Central | en_US |
dc.rights | © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. | |
dc.subject | Health policy | en_US |
dc.subject | Health systems | en_US |
dc.subject | Systematic reviews | en_US |
dc.subject | Evidence-informed health policy | en_US |
dc.subject | Comparative study | en_US |
dc.subject | Bibliographic databases | en_US |
dc.subject | Clearing house | en_US |
dc.subject | Search engine | en_US |
dc.subject | Database searching | en_US |
dc.subject | Search strategie | en_US |
dc.subject | Information retrieval | en_US |
dc.title | A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.privacy.showsubmitter | FALSE | |
dc.status.ispeerreviewed | TRUE | |