Effects of an Evidence Service on Health System Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence
![]() |
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details. |
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01307228 |
Recruitment Status :
Withdrawn
(Insufficient participants recruited for the trial)
First Posted : March 2, 2011
Last Update Posted : March 23, 2017
|
- Study Details
- Tabular View
- No Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
Condition or disease | Intervention/treatment | Phase |
---|---|---|
Use of Research Evidence | Other: Health Systems Evidence | Not Applicable |
Background Health system policymakers need timely access to synthesized research evidence to inform the policymaking process. No efforts to address this need have been evaluated using an experimental quantitative design. The investigators developed an evidence service that draws inputs from Health Systems Evidence, which is a database of policy relevant systematic reviews. The reviews have been: 1) categorized by topic and type of review; 2) coded by the last year searches for studies were conducted and by the countries in which included studies were conducted; 3) rated for quality; and 4) linked to available user-friendly summaries, scientific abstracts, and full-text reports. The goal is to evaluate whether a "full-serve" evidence service increases the use of synthesized research evidence by policy analysts and advisors in the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) as compared to a "self-serve" evidence service.
Methods/design: The investigators will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT), along with a follow-up qualitative process study in order to explore the findings in greater depth. For the RCT, all policy analysts and policy advisors (n=168) in a single division of the MOHLTC will be invited to participate. Using a stratified randomized design, participants will be randomized to receive either the "full-serve" evidence service (database access, monthly e-mail alerts, and full-text article availability) or the "self-serve" evidence service (database access only). The trial duration will be ten months (two-month baseline period, six-month intervention period, and two month cross-over period). The primary outcome will be the mean number of site visits/month/user between baseline and the end of the intervention period. The secondary outcome will be participants' intention to use research evidence. For the qualitative study, 15 participants from each trial arm (n=30) will be purposively sampled. One-on-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted by telephone on their views about and their experiences with the evidence service they received, how helpful it was in their work, why it was helpful (or not helpful), what aspects were most and least helpful and why, and recommendations for next steps.
Study Type : | Interventional (Clinical Trial) |
Actual Enrollment : | 0 participants |
Allocation: | Randomized |
Intervention Model: | Crossover Assignment |
Masking: | Single (Investigator) |
Primary Purpose: | Other |
Official Title: | Effects of an Evidence Service on Health System Policymakers' Use of Research Evidence |
Actual Study Start Date : | December 2010 |
Actual Primary Completion Date : | April 2011 |
Actual Study Completion Date : | February 2013 |
Arm | Intervention/treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: Full-serve evidence service
The "full-serve" evidence service consists of:
|
Other: Health Systems Evidence
Health Systems Evidence (HSE) contains over 1400 research syntheses about governance, financial and delivery arrangements within health systems and about implementation strategies relevant to health systems. The syntheses have been: 1) categorized by topic, type of synthesis, and type of question addressed; 2) coded by the last year in which searches for studies were conducted and by the countries in which included studies were conducted; 3) rated for quality; and 4) linked to publicly available user-friendly summaries, scientific abstracts, and full-text reviews. We identified systematic reviews in HSE that are not accessible to study participants and developed a mechanism to reimburse publishers for full-text downloads of these reviews. |
Active Comparator: Self-serve evidence service
Participants allocated to the "self-serve" evidence service will receive only database access, which is already publicly available at www.healthsystemsevidence.org
|
Other: Health Systems Evidence
Health Systems Evidence (HSE) contains over 1400 research syntheses about governance, financial and delivery arrangements within health systems and about implementation strategies relevant to health systems. The syntheses have been: 1) categorized by topic, type of synthesis, and type of question addressed; 2) coded by the last year in which searches for studies were conducted and by the countries in which included studies were conducted; 3) rated for quality; and 4) linked to publicly available user-friendly summaries, scientific abstracts, and full-text reviews. We identified systematic reviews in HSE that are not accessible to study participants and developed a mechanism to reimburse publishers for full-text downloads of these reviews. |
- number of logins/month/participant [ Time Frame: 10 months ]The investigators will track utilization of the evidence service by calculating the mean number of logins/month/participant
- Intention to use research evidence [ Time Frame: Baseline and follow-up (after delivery of 6-month intervention) ]The investigators will use the theory of planned behaviour to measure participants' intention to use research evidence. Using a manual designed to construct measures based on the theory, colleagues have developed and sought preliminary feedback on a data-collection instrument by first assessing face validity through interviews with key informants and then pilot testing it with 28 policymakers and researchers who completed it after participating in a knowledge translation intervention. In addition, colleagues found the data-collection instrument to have moderate test-retest reliability.

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.
Ages Eligible for Study: | Child, Adult, Older Adult |
Sexes Eligible for Study: | All |
Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | Yes |
Inclusion Criteria:
- All policy analysts and policy advisors from one purposively selected division of one Canadian provincial Ministry of Health.
Exclusion Criteria:
- None

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01307228
Canada, Ontario | |
McMaster Health Forum Impact Lab | |
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4K1 |
Principal Investigator: | John N Lavis, MD, PhD | McMaster University |
Responsible Party: | John Lavis, Professor, Department of Health Evidence and Impact, McMaster University |
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT01307228 |
Other Study ID Numbers: |
HHS/FHS REB 10-267 |
First Posted: | March 2, 2011 Key Record Dates |
Last Update Posted: | March 23, 2017 |
Last Verified: | March 2017 |
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement: | |
Plan to Share IPD: | No |
Plan Description: | Not applicable - trial was terminated due to insufficient enrollment and no data was collected. |
Knowledge translation Policymakers Health systems |