Artikel
Analysis of a specific dissemination activity of Cochrane Public Health evidence in German speaking countries: a cross-sectional study
Suche in Medline nach
Autoren
-
Ursula Griebler
- Danube University Krems, Department of Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Österreich; Cochrane Austria, Österreich
-
Thomas L. Heise
- Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS, Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Deutschland; University of Bremen, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland
-
Karina Karolina De Santis
- Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS, Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Deutschland
-
Jan Stratil
- LMU Munich, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Chair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Munich, Deutschland; Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Deutschland
-
Annegret Borchard
- University of Lausanne, Cochrane Switzerland, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), Lausanne, Schweiz
-
Christina Kien
- Danube University Krems, Department of Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Österreich; Cochrane Austria, Österreich
| Veröffentlicht: | 30. August 2022 |
|---|
Gliederung
Text
Background/research question: Decision making in Public Health is often informed by evidence from systematic reviews. Cochrane Public Health Europe regularly disseminates short summaries of the latest Cochrane Public Health reviews in German language via e-mail campaigns called “CPHE Infomails”. Such email-based dissemination is considered a “push” activity. Our study aimed to analyse the reach and impact of the CPHE Infomails and to assess the perceptions regarding our Infomails and preferences for evidence use for public health decision making.
Methods: We conducted an online survey of all recipients of previous CPHE Infomails in Austria, Germany and Switzerland in November 2020, consisting of self-developed 24 items based on literature. We further analysed the e-mail campaign reports of 15 CPHE Infomails: opening rate of Infomail, click rate on links to the German plain language summaries and full-text review on the Cochrane library.
Results: Out of 1,259 Infomail recipients, 267 (21%) completed our survey. Among the respondents 54% were female, 59% were 50 years or older and 67% held senior managerial positions. Almost all respondents use data, statistics and reports as well as academic research evidence in their work; approximately two thirds on at least a weekly basis. 88% indicated seeking expertise and advice; one third use other information types (traditional and social media, discussions with colleagues and grey literature). The Infomails were used to contribute to discussions (40%), write reports or statements (26%) and develop programs (21%) or guidelines (13%). The Infomails were rated as helpful for daily work (65%) and comprehensible (95%). The preferred methods to access evidence included scientific journals (64%), personal communication with experts (46%), research reports (36%) and conferences (36%). The preferred methods to receive information about scientific evidence were newsletters (21%) and email alerts (15%).
The median opening rate of CPHE Infomails was 26% (11–39%) and the median click rate on further links was 28% (8–43%).
Conclusion: Infomails with short summaries of recent Cochrane Public Health reviews in German language were considered useful for daily work of public health stakeholders in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Public-health stakeholders prefered “pull” activities to access and use research evidence over “push” activities undertaken by research organisations to disseminate research evidence. The Infomails should be available online to allow for immediate access when needed.
Competing interests: Keine
