Library Portal | UWC Portal | National ETDs | Global ETDs
    • Login
    Contact Us | About Us | FAQs | Login
    View Item 
    •   DSpace Home
    • Faculty of Community and Health Sciences
    • School of Public Health
    • Research Articles (SoPH)
    • View Item
    •   DSpace Home
    • Faculty of Community and Health Sciences
    • School of Public Health
    • Research Articles (SoPH)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Johansen_A-comparative-evaluation_2018.pdf (1.059Mb)
    Date
    2018
    Author
    Johansen, Marit
    Rada, Gabriel
    Rosenbaum, Sarah
    Paulsen, Elizabeth
    Motaze, Nkengafac Villyen
    Opiyo, Newton
    Wiysonge, Charles S.
    Ding, Yunpeng
    Mukinda, Fidele K.
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    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.
    URI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0299-8
    http://hdl.handle.net/10566/3584
    Collections
    • Research Articles (SoPH)

    DSpace 6.3 | Ubuntu | Copyright © University of the Western Cape
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    DSpace 6.3 | Ubuntu | Copyright © University of the Western Cape
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV