Skip to main content

Table 4 Formatting features of systematic reviews to enhance uptake

From: Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review

Summary Dissemination of SRs Layout, presentation, setup
Summary statement [30] Share material on a website [24, 43] Graded format with key messages [47]
1-page summaries in plain language [49] Provide tailored, targeted messages for relevant audiences [24] Recipe type guidance, the information indicates this, this, and this [52]
Abbreviated format of research evidence, such as an executive summary, would be preferable (1 to 2 pages long ) [43] Electronic communication channels are generally preferred [43] Title framed as a question [47]
Expectations of short, clear summary [47] Newsletters containing summaries of current research developed and directly emailed to managers [43] Reformatting the text to make it easier to pick out important parts [47]
Boxes placed throughout the summaries [47]   Chart on first page describing what review is about [47]
Summary of findings tables [47] Reports could be either distributed through professional organisations or through a clearinghouse [43] A modified academic abstract (relevance and description of review characteristics including the impact, applicability to setting, costs, or other considerations and need for no further evaluation) [47]
1-page summaries with references, so the reader is able to investigate further, and case studies [49] Active delivery of information (as opposed to access to online registry) [24] Preference for less dense, more accessible literature [49]
   Wanted a shorter, clearer presentation [47]
   A bullet point evaluation or rating system of study design quality so that for those of us who do not make our living doing that, we do not have to read a half dozen pages to ferret it out [44]
   Develop a more user-friendly “front end” for potentially relevant systematic reviews (e.g. 1 page of take-home messages and a 3-page executive summary) to facilitate rapid assessments of the relevance of a review by health care managers and policy makers and, when the review is deemed highly relevant, more graded entry into the full details of the review [45]
   Well written and concise [47]
   Limiting the number of tables and not letting them break across pages [47]
   Simplifying the text and tables and ensuring that the results in the text matched those in the tables [47]
   Moving partner logos and the summary publication date to the front page [47]