Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 589

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making

Lavis, John, Davies, Huw, Oxman, Andy, Denis, Jean-Louis, Golden-Biddle, Karen, Ferlie, Ewan·2005·Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
DOI 10.1258/1355819054308549
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives: To identify ways to improve the usefulness of systematic reviews for health care managers and policy-makers that could then be evaluated prospectively. Methods: We systematically reviewed studies of decision-making by health care managers and policy-makers, conducted interviews with a purposive sample of them in Canada and the United Kingdom (n=29), and reviewed the websites of research funders, producers/purveyors of research, and journals that include them among their target audiences (n=45). Results: Our systematic review identified that factors such as interactions between researchers and health care policy-makers and timing/timeliness appear to increase the prospects for research use among policy-makers. Our interviews with health care managers and policy-makers suggest that they would benefit from having information that is relevant for decisions highlighted for them (e.g. contextual factors that affect a review's local applicability and information about the benefits, harms/risks and costs of interventions) and having reviews presented in a way that allows for rapid scanning for relevance and then graded entry (such as one page of take-home messages, a three-page executive summary and a 25-page report). Managers and policy-makers have mixed views about the helpfulness of recommendations. Our analysis of websites found that contextual factors were rarely highlighted, recommendations were often provided and graded entry formats were rarely used. Conclusions: Researchers could help to ensure that the future flow of systematic reviews will better inform health care management and policy-making by involving health care managers and policy-makers in their production and better highlighting information that is relevant for decisions. Research funders could help to ensure that the global stock of systematic reviews will better inform health care management and policy-making by supporting and evaluating local adaptation processes such as developing and making available online more user-friendly ‘front ends’ for potentially relevant systematic reviews.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1258/1355819054308549

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 10.1258/1355819054308576 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.2307/j.ctt1t892t3 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/1468-0009.00214 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17317-0 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1258/135581902320432778 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1177/107554709301500104 · DOI
  8. Rudat K, 1998, London: Office for Public Management, 1
  9. 10.1093/pubmed/21.1.29 · DOI
  10. 10.1136/jech.54.6.461 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1300/J147v07n03_10 · DOI
  12. 10.1108/02689239310036954 · DOI
  13. 10.1037/h0034203 · doi:10.1037/h0034203
  14. Burns A, 2000, The Use of Health Technology Assessment and Clinical Effectiveness Data in Health Care Purchasing Decisions in the United Kingdom and the United States., 1
  15. Patton MQ, 1977, Using Social Research in Public Policymaking., 141
  16. Sunesson S, 1989, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 10, 140, 10.1177/0164025988010002003 · DOI
  17. 10.1093/heapol/14.2.103 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Caplan N, 1977, Using Social Research in Public Policy Making., 183
  19. 10.1177/002188638201800106 · DOI
  20. 10.1177/0193841X9101500501 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/0168-8510(94)00671-7 · DOI
  22. Oh CH, 1996, Int J Knowledge Transfer Util, 9, 3
  23. Oh CH, 1997, Int J Knowledge Transfer Util, 10, 22
  24. 10.1111/1468-0009.00043 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 2004, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Policy Synthesis: Program Overview.
  26. 2001, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Reader-Friendly Writing - 1:3:25.
  27. 10.7326/0003-4819-106-4-598 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1258/1355819011927369 · DOI
  29. 10.1001/jama.1994.03520170077040 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 589

Metadata

Authors
Lavis, J., Davies, H., Oxman, A., Denis, J.-L., Golden-Biddle, K., & Ferlie, E.
Venue
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2005-07
Volume
10
Issue
1_suppl
Pages
35-48
ISSN
  • 1355-8196 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1060
DOI
10.1258/1355819054308549
OpenAlex
W2100729569
Cited by
589
References
8
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1258/1355819054308549
The paper
Lavis, J., Davies, H., Oxman, A., Denis, J.-L., Golden-Biddle, K., & Ferlie, E. (2005). Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308549

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.