Browsing by Author "Pantoja Calderón, Tomás"

Now showing 1 - 20 of 40
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions
    (2013) Noyes, Jane; Gough, David; Lewin, Simon; Mayhew, Alain; Michie, Susan; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Petticrew, Mark; Pottie, Kevin; Rehfuess, Eva; Shemilt, Ian
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Advancing the field of health systems research synthesis
    (2015) Langlois, E. V.; Ranson, M. K.; Barnighausen, T.; Bosch-Capblanch, X.; Daniels, K.; El-Jardali, F.; Ghaffar, A.; Grimshaw, J. M.; Haines, A.; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Lewin, S.; Meng, Q.; Oliver, S.; Lavis, J. N.; Straus, S.; Shemilt, I.; Tovey, D.; Tugwell, P.; Waddington, H.; Wilson, M.; Yuan, B.; Rottingen, J. A.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analysis: a workshop report on promoting evidence based medical practice through capacity building in research synthesis
    (2011) Mbuagbaw, L.; Wiysonge, C. S.; Nsagha, D. S.; Ongolo-Zogo, P.; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás
    The increasing urgency for evidence based practice, especially in resource limited settings has inspired many initiatives to this effect. In Africa there is limited skill in research synthesis and the production of systematic reviews. The Centre for the Development of Best Practices in Health, together with the South African Cochrane Centre organised a workshop to train Cameroonian researchers on how to initiate and complete systematic reviews. Five facilitators and fifteen participants met over a period of four days. At the end of the workshop the participants expressed high levels of satisfaction and motivation to conduct systematic reviews, but expressed the need for additional support. Facilitators of future systematic review courses should address challenges related to internet access, adult education and realistic expectations from the participants.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data
    (2018) Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Lewin, Simon; Carlsen, Benedicte; Glenton, Claire; Colvin, Christopher J.; Garside, Ruth; Bohren, Meghan A.; Rashidian, Arash; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás
    Abstract Background The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s relevance component. Methods We developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.Abstract Background The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s relevance component. Methods We developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.Abstract Background The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual’s relevance component. Methods We developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. Results When applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments. Conclusions This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers : an overview of systematic reviews
    (2021) Chapman, Evelina; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Kuchenmüller, Tanja; Sharma, Tarang; Terry, Robert F.
    Background: The use of research evidence as an input for health decision-making is a need for most health systems. There are a number of approaches for promoting evidence use at diferent levels of the health system, but knowledge of their efectiveness is still scarce. The objective of this overview was to evaluate the efectiveness of knowledge communication and dissemination interventions, strategies or approaches targeting policy-makers and health managers. Methods: This overview of systematic reviews used systematic review methods and was conducted according to a predefned and published protocol. A comprehensive electronic search of 13 databases and a manual search in four websites were conducted. Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and efectiveness statements were developed, informed by the evidence identifed. Results: We included 27 systematic reviews. Three studies included only a communication strategy, while eight only included dissemination strategies, and the remaining 16 included both. None of the selected reviews provided “sufcient evidence” for any of the strategies, while four provided some evidence for three communication and four dissemination strategies. Regarding communication strategies, the use of tailored and targeted messages seemed to successfully lead to changes in the decision-making practices of the target audience. Regarding dissemination strategies, interventions that aimed at improving only the reach of evidence did not have an impact on its use in decisions, while interventions aimed at enhancing users’ ability to use and apply evidence had a positive efect on decisionmaking processes. Multifaceted dissemination strategies also demonstrated the potential for changing knowledge about evidence but not its implementation in decision-making. Conclusions: There is limited evidence regarding the efectiveness of interventions targeting health managers and policy-makers, as well as the mechanisms required for achieving impact. More studies are needed that are informed by theoretical frameworks or specifc tools and using robust methods, standardized outcome measures and clear descriptions of the interventions. We found that passive communication increased access to evidence but had no effect on uptake. Some evidence indicated that the use of targeted messages, knowledge-brokering and user training was effective in promoting evidence use by managers and policy-makers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Capturing lessons learned from evidence-to-policy initiatives through structured reflection
    (2014) Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; El-Jardali, Fadi; Lavis, John; Moat, Kaelan; Ataya, Nour
    Abstract Background Knowledge translation platforms (KTPs), which are partnerships between policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers, are being established in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to enhance evidence-informed health policymaking (EIHP). This study aims to gain a better understanding of the i) activities conducted by KTPs, ii) the way in which KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders perceive these activities and their outputs, iii) facilitators that support KTP work and challenges, and the lessons learned for overcoming such challenges, and iv) factors that can help to ensure the sustainability of KTPs. Methods This paper triangulated qualitative data from: i) 17 semi-structured interviews with 47 key informants including KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders from 10 KTPs; ii) document reviews, and iii) observation of deliberations at the International Forum on EIHP in LMICs held in Addis Ababa in August 2012. Purposive sampling was used and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Deliberative dialogues informed by evidence briefs were identified as the most commendable tools by interviewees for enhancing EIHP. KTPs reported that they have contributed to increased awareness of the importance of EIHP and strengthened relationships among policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers. Support from policymakers and international funders facilitated KTP activities, while the lack of skilled human resources to conduct EIHP activities impeded KTPs. Ensuring the sustainability of EIHP initiatives after the end of funding was a major challenge for KTPs. KTPs reported that institutionalization within the government has helped to retain human resources and secure funding, whereas KTPs hosted by universities highlighted the advantage of autonomy from political interests. Conclusions The establishment of KTPs is a promising development in supporting EIHP. Real-time lesson drawing from the experiences of KTPs can support improvements in the functioning of KTPs in the short term, while making the case for sustaining their work in the long term. Lessons learned can help to promote similar EIHP initiatives in other countries.Abstract Background Knowledge translation platforms (KTPs), which are partnerships between policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers, are being established in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to enhance evidence-informed health policymaking (EIHP). This study aims to gain a better understanding of the i) activities conducted by KTPs, ii) the way in which KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders perceive these activities and their outputs, iii) facilitators that support KTP work and challenges, and the lessons learned for overcoming such challenges, and iv) factors that can help to ensure the sustainability of KTPs. Methods This paper triangulated qualitative data from: i) 17 semi-structured interviews with 47 key informants including KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders from 10 KTPs; ii) document reviews, and iii) observation of deliberations at the International Forum on EIHP in LMICs held in Addis Ababa in August 2012. Purposive sampling was used and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Deliberative dialogues informed by evidence briefs were identified as the most commendable tools by interviewees for enhancing EIHP. KTPs reported that they have contributed to increased awareness of the importance of EIHP and strengthened relationships among policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers. Support from policymakers and international funders facilitated KTP activities, while the lack of skilled human resources to conduct EIHP activities impeded KTPs. Ensuring the sustainability of EIHP initiatives after the end of funding was a major challenge for KTPs. KTPs reported that institutionalization within the government has helped to retain human resources and secure funding, whereas KTPs hosted by universities highlighted the advantage of autonomy from political interests. Conclusions The establishment of KTPs is a promising development in supporting EIHP. Real-time lesson drawing from the experiences of KTPs can support improvements in the functioning of KTPs in the short term, while making the case for sustaining their work in the long term. Lessons learned can help to promote similar EIHP initiatives in other countries.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series - paper 1 : introduction
    (2018) Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Cargo, Margaret; Flemming, Kate; Garside, Ruth; Hannes, Karin; Harden, Angela; Harris, Janet; Lewin, Simon; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Thomas, James
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis
    (2018) Harris, Janet L.; Booth, Andrew; Cargo, Margaret; Hannes, Karin; Harden, Angela; Flemming, Kate; Garside, Ruth; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Thomas, James; Noyes, Jane
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings
    (2018) Noyes, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Flemming, Kate; Garside, Ruth; Harden, Angela; Lewin, Simon; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Hannes, Karin; Cargo, Margaret; Thomas, James
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 4: methods for assessing evidence on intervention implementation
    (2018) Cargo, Margaret; Harris, Janet; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Booth, Andrew; Harden, Angela; Hannes, Karin; Thomas, James; Flemming, Kate; Garside, Ruth; Noyes, Jane
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews
    (2018) Harden, Angela; Thomas, James; Cargo, Margaret; Harris, Janet; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Flemming, Kate; Booth, Andrew; Garside, Ruth; Hannes, Karin; Noyes, Jane
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    El análisis crítico de la información publicada en la literatura médica
    (2004) Letelier Saavedra, Luz María; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Neumann Burotto, Gonzalo Ignacio
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues : Perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt
    (2014) Moat, Kaelan A.; Lavis, John N.; Clancy, Sarah J.; El-Jardali, Fadi; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Extending the PRISMA. statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E. 2012) : explanation and elaboration
    (2016) Welch, Vivian; Petticrew, Mark; Petkovic, Jennifer; Moher, David; Waters, Elizabeth; White, Howard; Tugwell, Peter; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Financial arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: An overview of systematic reviews
    (2017) Charles, S.; Wiysonge, Elizabeth Paulsen; Lewin, Simon; Ciapponi, Agustín; Herrera Riquelme, Cristian Alberto; Opiyo, Newton; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Rada G., Gabriel; Oxman, Andrew D.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: An overview of systematic reviews
    (2017) Herrera Riquelme, Cristian Alberto; Lewin, Simon; Paulsen, Elizabeth; Ciapponi, Agustín; Opiyo, Newton; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Rada G., Gabriel; Wiysonge, Charles S; Bastías, Gabriel; Garcia Marti, Sebastian; Okwundu, Charles I.; Peñaloza Hidalgo, Blanca Elvira; Oxman, Andrew D.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Guías de práctica clínica : una introducción a su elaboración e implementación
    (2014) Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Soto Subiabre, Mauricio Andrés
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Hacia un nuevo modelo de atención primaria en salud. Evaluación del proyecto de salud familiar Ancora UC
    (2013) Puschel Illanes, Klaus; Tellez, Alvaro; Montero Labbé, Joaquín; Brunner, Astrid; Peñaloza Hidalgo, Blanca Elvira; Rojas Villar, María Paulina; Poblete A., Fernando; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods
    (2013) Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Welch, Vivian A.; Petticrew, Mark; O’Neill, Jennifer; Waters, Elizabeth; Armstrong, Rebecca; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A.; Francis, Damian; Koehlmoos, Tracey P.; Kristjansson, Elizabeth
    Abstract Background At the Rio Summit in 2011 on Social Determinants of Health, the global community recognized a pressing need to take action on reducing health inequities. This requires an improved evidence base on the effects of national and international policies on health inequities. Although systematic reviews are recognized as an important source for evidence-informed policy, they have been criticized for failing to assess effects on health equity. Methods This article summarizes guidance on both conducting systematic reviews with a focus on health equity and on methods to translate their findings to different audiences. This guidance was developed based on a series of methodology meetings, previous guidance, a recently developed reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity 2012) and a systematic review of methods to assess health equity in systematic reviews. Results We make ten recommendations for conducting equity-focused systematic reviews; and five considerations for knowledge translation. Illustrative examples of equity-focused reviews are provided where these methods have been used. Conclusions Implementation of the recommendations in this article is one step toward monitoring the impact of national and international policies and programs on health equity, as recommended by the 2011 World Conference on Social Determinants of Health.Abstract Background At the Rio Summit in 2011 on Social Determinants of Health, the global community recognized a pressing need to take action on reducing health inequities. This requires an improved evidence base on the effects of national and international policies on health inequities. Although systematic reviews are recognized as an important source for evidence-informed policy, they have been criticized for failing to assess effects on health equity. Methods This article summarizes guidance on both conducting systematic reviews with a focus on health equity and on methods to translate their findings to different audiences. This guidance was developed based on a series of methodology meetings, previous guidance, a recently developed reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity 2012) and a systematic review of methods to assess health equity in systematic reviews. Results We make ten recommendations for conducting equity-focused systematic reviews; and five considerations for knowledge translation. Illustrative examples of equity-focused reviews are provided where these methods have been used. Conclusions Implementation of the recommendations in this article is one step toward monitoring the impact of national and international policies and programs on health equity, as recommended by the 2011 World Conference on Social Determinants of Health.