1. art and entertainment
2. books and literature

How to Summarize and Synthesize Research Reports
for use in Policy Decision-Making
A Handbook
Prepared by:
Nadine Wathen & Gillian Watson
For the Women’s Health Unit
Ontario Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care
May 2007
Running Head: Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1
Background
2
Context
2
Problem
2
Solution
2
Purpose of this document
2
Figure 1: Overview of the Process
3
Step One: Identify Topics & Set Priorities
4
Step Two: Identify End Users & Their Needs
5
Step Three: Develop Data Collection Tools
7
Step Four: Data Extraction, phase one
9
Step Five: Data Extraction, phase two - Develop Draft Summaries
10
Step Six: Research and Literature Update
12
Step Seven: Product Design & Completion Incorporating User Feedback
13
Step Eight: Dissemination
15
Step Nine: Maintenance and Updating
16
Appendix 1: OWHC KT Project - Priority-Setting Survey Tool
17
Appendix 2: OWHC KT Project – User Focus Group Guide
21
Appendix 3: OWHC KT Project – Sample Interview Guide
24
Appendix 4: OWHC KT Project - Content Extraction Tool
25
-1-
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Background
Context
Accessing and using evidence-based research is a goal of the health care
system and health policy decision-makers.
• Government and non-government organizations expend significant
resources commissioning and conducting research and development
projects that lead to large paper-based reports.
Problem
Shelves filled with paper-based reports and documents that are inaccessible
and/or unused. Even when available online, these reports are often unused
due to length, format and reporting style.
Solution
Short, user-friendly information products that provide key messages and…
… are based on an understanding of end user needs and work contexts,
… are designed according to these needs,
… help users find, understand and implement the evidence in their daily
decisions,
… are made available in easy-to access formats and places, both print and
electronic.
Purpose of this document
To provide a step-by-step guide to converting program evaluation
and research findings into user-friendly and accessible policy-oriented
summaries.
The process description will use the example of the Ontario Women’s Health
Council (OWHC) Knowledge Translation (KT) Project, which developed brief,
accessible lay summaries, designed with and by end users on:
• seven content-specific topics in women’s health, and
• two program processes and ‘lessons learned’
The overall project period was 9 months; estimated times for each step are
provided, and some steps took place concurrently.
-2-
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Figure 1: Overview of the Process
Step 1: Identify topics & set priorities
Step 2: Identify users & their needs
Step 3: Develop tools to extract relevant
information from the reports
Step 4: Extract key information from reports
and related documents
Step 6:
Search for new information on topic
Step 5: Draft summary incorporating: report data,
user needs and new information
Step 7: Product design incorporating feedback
from end users (e- and print versions)
Step 8: Disseminate summaries to users
(strategies for electronic and paper delivery)
Step 9: Maintain and update summaries
(as required)
-3-
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Step One: Identify Topics & Set Priorities
In cases where there are too many topics to feasibly synthesize, a topic identification
and priority setting stage is essential. Depending on time and resources, this step
is needed to determine what topics should be considered – on the basis, for
example, of the quality and/or importance of the evidence provided - for further
development, and prioritize amongst them.
One way to prioritize the topics is to conduct a survey with available experts
using a purpose-designed survey tool (e.g., Appendix 1). Experts selected for
consultation will depend on the project’s interest group, and may include some
or all of: research sponsors/funders; end users; external experts or others with an
interest/stake in the process. The results of the survey are collated to determine the
main topics to be included in the knowledge synthesis and product development
process.
Alternate methods to identify priority topics include letting the funders or sponsors
decide, or basing the decision on other factors, such as internal priorities, feasibility,
or resources.
The OWHC KT Project Experience:
The OWHC (“council”) funded a broad spectrum of women’s health
research which resulted in findings of relevance to clinical and policy
decision-makers in Ontario and beyond. More than 75 completed reports, as
well as numerous projects and programs covering a broad range of topics,
were available to translate into policy-oriented documents. However, it was
not feasible to synthesize this many topics for the KT project. Therefore, a
systematic process of topic identification and priority setting took place as
follows:
1) A table of topics and related documentation was prepared.
2) A process for surveying current and former council members was developed, including a data collection tool (Appendix 1).
3) Members of council completed the survey and the results were collated to determine the 6-7 main topic areas to be included in the knowledge synthesis and product development process.
Of the topics selected, two were deemed to be process-related (i.e.
providing valuable “lessons learned” regarding implementation of specific
activities of council) while the others provided specific research findings of
interest to potential users.
Estimated time for this step: The table of completed topics and related
documentation stage took approximately 1 day to complete. The priority
setting stage took three to four months to survey eleven current and former
council members, to tabulate results and to have council formally ratify the
priority topics.
-4-
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Step Two: Identify End Users & Their Needs
To ensure that that the products created are maximally relevant and usable to
the target audience, it is vital to be clear about who the end users of the products
are likely to be, what information they would find most useful, and how they would
like to receive the information.
How to identify users: The end user is usually determined by the mandate and
scope of the project – i.e., those who commissioned the project should be able
to advise who the products are for. If this is not clear, consulting with those who
initiated the project should help clarify this.
How to identify users’ needs: There are several ways to determine user needs.
Below are common approaches used to consult end users; the method selected
will depend on specific project goals and available resources.
Consulting existing literature: There may be published tools and guides for
developing knowledge products for specific audiences. For example, the
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) offers helpful tips on how
to create different end products for different policy-specific uses, including:
• a 1-page summary for the bottom-line messages
• a more detailed 3-page summary, and
• a comprehensive 25 page document for those requiring more detail
Tip: See the CHSRF KEYS for more information on providing research evidence to
policy audiences: http://www.chsrf.ca/keys/index_e.php
Informal discussions: An important part of knowledge translation is building
relationships between those providing the research information and end users.
Starting informal discussions with end users at any point in the development
process (but the earlier the better!) will make the end product more useful.
Focus groups: The primary purpose of an initial focus group is to understand
exactly what users expect and want from the product that is being created. It
is also an excellent opportunity to explain what the project is about, introduce
the knowledge translation process, and make users aware that the products are
under development for them. The following should be included:
• participants who represent the end users;
• an expert facilitator guiding discussion and a project representative
available to introduce the project and provide clarification or additional
detail about content or process;
• a draft approach for extracting, summarizing and synthesizing the
available information;
• an outline of various options for the look and feel of the end products.
-5-
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Formal interviews: Formal interviews with experts in the field or with key
representatives of the end user group may be useful to have to gain insight on
specific aspects of the knowledge or its use not captured in the focus group
(for example, any political or other less obvious consequences of the work).
Individual interviews might target end users at a “higher” level than would the
focus groups.
The OWHC KT Project Experience:
Identification of end users: the target group was determined by the OWHC
to be policy personnel (manager and analyst levels) in the Ministry of Health
& Long Term Care and other provincial ministries as appropriate.
Identification of user needs: these were determined by informal discussions,
formal interviews and focus groups with end users; review of available
literature on knowledge translation and research dissemination; and
consultation with experts in this area. The focus group guide is found in
Appendix 2.
Estimated time for this step: The identification of end users was determined
through discussion at a meeting with council. The process for identifying
user needs took approximately three months, and included a review of
current knowledge translation literature, several informal discussions, two
focus groups, and two formal interviews.
-6-
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Step Three: Develop Data Collection Tools
Once end user needs are identified, the next step is to develop and refine the
data collection tools. There are several ways to extract or collect information
from projects according to project type. If it is a process topic, a useful way to
gather, understand and synthesize “lessons learned” is to conduct interviews
with key informants who were involved with the implementation of the project/
program being described. If the topic is content or results-oriented, the main
data collection approach is a content extraction tool to guide the selection of
pertinent content/data from the research reports.
Interview Guides
Key informants to consult regarding a process topic are ideally the main report
author(s), and/or the program/project lead (depending upon the type of process
involved). A semi-structured interview guide, with several probes regarding the
project’s main process and outcome-related accomplishments and shortcomings
should be used. The goal of these interviews is to determine the best practices
that could be applied by those attempting to develop and implement similar
programs or projects, and what practices should be avoided.
Content Extraction Tool
A key step in developing the content that will ultimately be synthesized into the
knowledge product(s) is to determine what to extract from the existing reports.
The following are tips to developing a useful content extraction framework:
• If there are a series of reports, they should be reviewed to get an idea of
the different sections available for extraction.
• Design an initial draft with what to extract from each section. Someone
familiar with the general content and structure of the reports should
review this initial draft.
• Test the initial content extraction tool by extracting information from one
of the documents to see if it includes all of the sections and necessary
data.
• Present the draft framework at the initial end user focus group;
incorporate changes suggested by participants.
-7-
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
The OWHC KT Project Experience:
Development of interview guide: The OWHC KT project had two processrelated topics. In consultation with OWHC staff, it was determined that the
best approach for collecting and documenting this information was to
conduct in-depth interviews with some of those closely involved with the
topics. Interview guides were created for each topic and are attached in
Appendix 3.
Development of content extraction tool: The same content extraction tool
was used for both process and content-specific research summaries. A
draft of this was reviewed at the end-user focus groups to ensure that all
required information was included. The final content extraction tool can be
found in Appendix 4.
Estimated time for this step: The development of both the interview guide
and content extraction tool took approximately three weeks.
-8-
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Step Four: Data Extraction, phase one
Once the data collection tools have been created and refined, the next step is to
conduct the interviews and extract the content from the reports.
Interviews:
There is no initial stage of data extraction from the interview notes.
Content extraction:
At this stage it is important to be very inclusive to avoid excluding potentially
valuable information. At the end of the first extraction phase it is possible to have
many more pages of information than will ultimately be included in the final
summary. Since the reports can be lengthy, the first phase of data extraction
may be somewhat time consuming, and time and resources should be allocated
accordingly. Here are some tips that can guide the data extraction phase:
• Read the executive summary first and extract the necessary information based
on the content extraction tool. If there is insufficient information in the executive
summary, the full text must be reviewed.
• Often it is not necessary to read the details of the results section. This is because
the most significant results will be summarized at a higher level in the discussion
– ideally in the form of key messages or findings.
• If the executive summary does not provide sufficient information on study
implementation, then the methods section must be reviewed to understand the
procedures used, and, importantly, the population to which the findings can (or
cannot) be generalized.
• The discussion and conclusion are key places to find the most important results
and their implications.
• It is useful to write down the page number of the extracted information, in case
further clarification of any of the information extracted during the next step is
required.
The OWHC KT Project Experience:
Due to the length of the reports, the initial content extraction phase in
the OWHC KT Project was one of the more time consuming phases. The
most challenging part of this process was finding the most relevant main
findings and conclusions. Some of the reports included most of the required
information in the executive summary, whereas others required reading
most or all of the discussion and conclusion sections to understand the
main findings related to women’s health.
Estimated time for this step: The duration of data extraction ranged
depending on the length of the reports. For example, if a report was 200
pages long, this process took approximately 4-6 hours.
-9-
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Step Five: Data Extraction, phase two - Develop Draft Summaries
The development of the initial draft capsules should include the sections that were
suggested by end users. This process is highly iterative and allocating sufficient
time for rounds of refinement and editing is recommended.
Interviews:
After completion of the interviews, the notes should be sent back to the interviewees
for any additional comments and clarifications.
The content for the initial draft of the process-oriented summaries should come
from the interview notes. If there is more than one interview conducted, go
through the interview notes and find all the similarities. The similarities in the key
lessons learned should be emphasized.
Content extraction:
Essentially, drafting the initial summary document is the second stage of data
extraction, but this time from a much smaller amount of data (the content
extracted in phase one). At this stage more than one report could be included in
the summary if the topics are related. Useful tips include:
• Put as much information as possible in bullet points rather than narrative
paragraphs.
• When possible, avoid reporting complicated statistics (e.g. p-values, t-test results,
etc. that may be meaningless to those without a research background), rather use
percentages or simple descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations
and odds ratios.
• When preparing more than one summary, keep the look and feel consistent, for
example through the use of similar headings, especially if the end products will be
distributed as a “package.”
• Use lay rather than technical language; avoid jargon and acronyms.
• Include a section on ‘how to cite’ the document, and who the summary authors
are.
• Include the author of the original report and their contact information. Prior to
doing this, the report author should be given the opportunity to review the material
and permission obtained to include their name and contact information.
• Include information on how to access the full report(s) and any other materials
that were used or cited to prepare the summary.
- 10 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
The OWHC KT Project Experience:
There were two types of drafts made for this project, one for the contentoriented summaries and the other for the process-oriented summaries. The
process-oriented drafts were developed based on information from the
interviews.
Estimated time for this step: The length of time it took to extract information
from the phase one extraction file into an initial draft summary depended
on the number of reports being combined. A summary that included one
report took approximately three hours, whereas a summary that combined
more than one report took up to eight hours. The revisions at this stage took
2-3 weeks depending on how many people were editing the draft.
- 11 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Step Six: Research and Literature Update
Depending on the topic and the time elapsed since project completion, a
research and literature update might be required. This is particularly true in cases
where: there is more recent research or data on the topic that reinforces or refutes
the report(s) being summarized; or there have been related policy or program
decisions made on the topic in other jurisdictions (e.g., other provinces) of interest
to end users.
If there is a significant amount of new information, a professional librarian may
need to conduct a comprehensive search. Other ways to determine whether
there may be new and relevant information include asking experts in the field,
consulting recent policy decisions, or (for a very general overview) conducting an
online search using specific keywords.
The OWHC KT Project Experience:
Several of the summaries may require additional/recent information
sections, for example when the report was older and new evidence had
emerged since it was released; or to assist in context-setting; provide
background or related information, etc.
Examples of the types of new information that were included in some of
the research summaries are:
•
new guidelines on a procedure or intervention
•
information on similar or different new programs started in other provinces
or states
•
links to other more recent evidence-based reviews or reports on a topic
•
description of policy and practice-related controversies or uncertainties
Estimated time for this step: This was an ongoing phase of the development
of the capsules, which took place over approximately three months.
- 12 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Step Seven: Product Design & Completion Incorporating User Feedback
If budget permits, it is advisable to involve a graphic designer to develop a
summary that is visually appealing and easy to read. At the final draft stage of
the summary, a series of design and user feedback iterations generally follows
and time and resources should be budgeted accordingly.
Focus group: A focus group can be used as a form of usability testing once there
is a near final draft of the summary. The following steps for the focus group should
be included:
• Email the draft(s) to participants one week prior to the focus group so that
they have a chance to read the summaries and are then prepared to
comment on the content and format.
• Everything from content to structure to aesthetics should be discussed.
• Have an external facilitator run the focus group with a project representative
to answer specific topic-related questions; however if budget is a concern,
a project representative can probably run it alone.
• Every participant should have a colour-printed version of the near final draft
of each summary.
Final Version: the process of finalizing the summary includes:
• incorporating all relevant feedback from end users and report authors
• adding any new information retrieved
• a round of final text editing by those preparing the summary, and one or
two others who have yet to view the product, if possible
• professional layout in an appropriate design software package
• selection of a professional printer and discussion of colours, logo and final
layout between the designer, printer and someone from the summary
team.
- 13 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
The OWHC KT Project Experience:
A focus group was held with the same users consulted in the initial focus
group. There were many suggestions for the aesthetics and structure. All of
the suggestions that were feasible were included in the final design. Final
production of the summaries was conducted by a graphic designer using
Adobe InDesign software. Print and e-versions (pdf) were prepared, with
careful attention paid to such issues as colour-matching with the OWHC
logo, length, layout, etc.
Estimated time for this step: The design and user feedback stage took
approximately three weeks. Preparing the final versions of the nine summaries
took approximately two weeks including final editing and review by the
team, layout by the graphic designer for both electronic and print versions,
and printing.
- 14 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Step Eight: Dissemination
The dissemination strategy will depend on the identity and information seeking
patterns of the end users. There are a variety of ways to disseminate the summaries,
including:
• email the intended users the summaries in portable document format (pdf);
and/or
• post the summaries on a website with links to the various topics, if more than
one. Then email the intended users the web link; and/or
• send the print versions of the summaries by mail; and/or
• present them at a conference or other relevant venue.
The OWHC KT Project Experience:
Several methods were used to disseminate the summaries. This project
might be unique because the summaries were presented at a farewell
reception for the OWHC. They were printed in colour and were two to four
pages long.
Following this initial release, the pdf versions of the summaries were posted
on the OWHC website:
http://www.womenshealthcouncil.on.ca/English/Knowledge-TranslationTools.html.
They were also sent to an identified end user group including CEOs and
Planning Directors of Local Health Integration Networks and community
health centres.
Estimated time for this step: The dissemination of the summaries took
approximately two weeks.
- 15 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Step Nine: Maintenance and Updating
Whether and how to maintain and update research summaries is something that
should be considered as early as possible in the development process, as it will
have significant resource implications. An initial decision is whether the project is
“one time only” (as was the OWHC KT Project) or is expected to provide “living”
summaries. If the project intends to maintain and update summaries, the following
issues should be considered:
1) Determine the time-frame for reviewing topics for update. This can be
yearly, however the intensity of work in the topic area may dictate more or
less frequent reviews.
2) Decide if updates will consist of augmentation of the existing summary
with new information only (e.g., “add-on”), significant revision to several
sections (e.g. “update”), or complete overhaul of the topic – essentially
starting from scratch. The decision will depend on the topic, but having an
a priori protocol outlining which factors lead to which decision is helpful.
Such factors include:
a. the amount of new information;
b. the type of new information (i.e., does it support or contradict the
previous conclusions);
c. new controversies or other contextual factors that may require a different
treatment of the issue.
3) Determine who will make decisions regarding whether updating is required
and who will conduct the topic reviews. Ideally, some of those who were
on the original review and summary team will be part of the updating
process.
4) Develop a protocol for how to search for new information (sources, tools,
etc.) and how much time will be spent doing this.
5) Decide what will happen in cases where searches for new information yield
nothing of note (i.e., nothing that changes the conclusions of the original
summary). For example, will the same summary be re-released with a note
indicating when it was last checked for new relevant information?
The OWHC Knowledge Translation Project Experience:
The OWHC KT Project was “one time only” and did not build this step into
its process.
- 16 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Appendix 1: OWHC KT Project - Priority-Setting Survey Tool
Instructions:
Please use the information to guide you in assigning a “significance” rating to
each of the main topic areas. If an important topic area has been missed, please
include it at the end.
This is a subjective process, based on your experience with council. “Significance”
can include any combination and weighting of criteria including: the breadth
of scope of the available work; quantity; quality; how current the work is; how
applicable it is to policy; practice and public decision-making, etc. Since it is not
feasible to capture each of these criteria separately, we ask that you provide
an overall impression of each topic. Your ratings will help council decide the
ultimate question: “what 5 or 6 topics are the most significant and valuable
contributions that OWHC has made, and should ensure are developed into userbased “knowledge products” and featured as legacy items?”
Please rate each topic area by circling the number corresponding to its
“significance” on the 5-point scale, where 1 = less significance and 5 = more
significance.
1. Maternity Care
Reports: Attaining and Maintaining Best Practices in the Use of Caesarean Sections:
An analysis of four Ontario hospitals (2000); Caesarean Section Best Practices
Project: Impact and Analysis (2002); Maternity Care in Ontario: Emerging Crisis,
Emerging Solutions (2006)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
2. Emergency Contraception
Projects: ECP through pharmacists (2001); Survey re: ECP availability (2006);
Advocacy: ECP public awareness campaign (2006)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
3. Cancer
Projects: BRCA testing (2006); HPV testing in primary care (2007); Cervical cancerscreening program recommendations (2006); Report: The Quality of Cancer
Services for Women in Ontario (2006)
1
less sig.
2
3
- 17 -
4
5
more sig.
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
4. Abortion
Project: Studies on Access to Abortion Services (2007)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
5. Mental Health
Report: A Literature Review of Depression Among Women: Focusing on Ontario
(2006)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
6. Building Research Capacity
Projects: Endowed chairs, various awards programs, Research days conference
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
7. Women’s Health Reporting
Reports: Ontario Women’s Health Status Report (2002); Accountability in
Women’s Health (2005); Projects: Hospital Reports and related (various);
Project for an Ontario Evidence-Based Report Card (POWER) (2009)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
8. Woman Abuse
Projects: Dissemination of stalking educational materials (2002);CME for family
physicians (2005); HIV-PEP (2006); SADVTC protocols for drug facilitated sexual
assault (2007); McMaster VAW Research Program (2008)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
4
5
more sig.
9. Demonstration Projects
20+ individual projects plus process learnings.
1
less sig.
2
3
- 18 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
10. Osteoporosis
Reports: A Framework and Strategy for the Prevention and Treatment of
Osteoporosis, (2000); Development of a Model for Integrated Post-Fracture
Care in Ontario (2003); Projects: Public awareness campaign (2003) CME on
osteoporosis and falls prevention (2005)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
11. Chronic Conditions
Report: Literature Review – Behavioural Guidelines for Adjusting to Medical
Conditions (2001); Project: Burden of Illness and Disability (2007)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
12. Health Risk Behaviours
Report: Literature Review on the Best Mechanisms to Influence Health Risk
Behaviours (2000); Projects: Healthy Eating Roundtable (2001); Healthy Measures
toolkit (2003); Translation of Canada’s Food Guide (2003); Healthy eating
intervention evaluation (2003)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
13. Abnormal Uterine Bleeding
Report: Achieving Best Practices in the Use of Hysterectomy (2002); Project: CME
on best practices for abnormal uterine bleeding (2007)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
14. Homelessness and Social Isolation
Reports: Health Status of Homeless Women – An Inventory of Issues (2002);
Models and Practices in Service Integration and Coordination for Women Who
are Homeless or At-Risk of Homelessness: An Inventory of Initiatives (2003)
1
less sig.
2
3
- 19 -
4
5
more sig.
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
15. Incontinence
Projects: Survey (2004); “Improving Continence Care in Complex Continuing
Care (IC5)” quality improvement model (2005)
1
less sig.
2
3
4
5
more sig.
16. Other _________________________________________________________________
1
less sig.
2
3
- 20 -
4
5
more sig.
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Appendix 2: OWHC KT Project – User Focus Group Guide
Preamble:
•
•
•
Welcome [Facilitator]
Self-introduction by group members
Introduce the Knowledge Capsules project [Project Assistant]
Stage One – Orientation
Objective: Orients group members to the subject matter under discussion. Identify unmet
needs and unsolved problems associated with the topic under discussion.
Questions
1. Do you use research results in your policy development work? Please describe how
and when.
Probe for specific examples, if appropriate.
2. What are the main benefits of using research results?
Probe for additional benefits and/or specific examples of when the process of using
research has been especially valuable.
3. What are the main challenges?
Probe for additional challenges and/or specific examples of when the process of
using research has been especially difficult.
4. What makes it easy for you to use research results?
5. What makes it hard?
Stage Two – Exposure
Objective: Determine initial reactions to the product concept
• bullet-point descriptions printed on large flip chart or PowerPoint slides can be used
to display our initial concepts; this should be structured around the content extraction
framework.
Preamble: Now we’d like to get your reaction to some of the ways we’ve been
thinking about presenting brief summaries developed specifically for the types of policy
development activities you might be involved with. These have been drafted based
on what we know from the research literature on how policy-makers seek and use
research evidence, and we’ve had input from experts in the field. That said, it won’t be
a user-centred product until we hear from users – that’s you. So please be very honest
– whether positive or negative – since your feedback will very much determine what the
final products look like.
6. From the research reports commissioned by the OWHC, we can extract and summarize
the following type of content.
- 21 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Background:
•
How the project came about
•
What the problem is and why it’s important
•
Scope, context & purpose of the research in the Ontario and/or Canadian
context
•
Definitions where necessary
Methods:
•
Very brief description of the approach and sample (i.e., “this survey was conducted
in March 2005 with 642 randomly sampled Ontario women.”)
Key Findings
•
key findings stated at a very high level, avoiding use of statistics, except basic
percentages, proportions, or odds (i.e., “women with depression were 4 times more
likely to also indicate current exposure to partner violence” or “32% of women in
group X had outcome A, compared to 12% of women in group Y”, or, “32% of
women …, however the true effect can range anywhere from 27% to 37%”)
Interpretation & Recommendations
•
What the study adds to what we know
•
Recommendations/implications of the new data for policy, practice, research,
and education and gaps in knowledge that may require future research
•
cost implications (if available)
•
the researchers’ view of what the ideal situation would be and what is needed to
make the problem better
7. After identifying and summarizing the contents of the report, a next step is to try to
add value to what’s available in the report by incorporating the following elements
•
Summary of the assessment of the quality of the report – i.e., can these results be
trusted?
•
New and relevant information available on the topic since completion of the
report.
•
Recommendations framed in terms of the implications for the four areas identified:
policy, practice, research, education:
o either re-iterate those from the report if there’s congruence with new or
external evidence, or
o state different recommendations and be explicit about why they differ from
those of the report (e.g., new evidence)
•
What other policy makers have decided around the topic in relevant
jurisdictions.
•
Controversies related to the topic (brief summary citing key materials)
•
Who to contact for more information, and/or where to look for more information
- 22 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
8. How long do you think these should be? is there a minimum length? maximum?
9. What the best way to get these types of summaries to you?
Probes re: push/pull; online or other; timing/frequency
10. Is there anything else you can think of at this point that would help us draft some
samples for you to review online?
Wrap-Up
•
reminder re: online space – we’ll send email notification when drafts are
available for review, with links and instructions for accessing and providing
feedback
•
reminder re: focus group in the new year – maybe try to book the date while
people are in the room? target mid-late January
•
thanks and give project representative’s contact info in case they think of
anything they want to add in the next couple of days
- 23 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Appendix 3: OWHC KT Project – Sample Interview Guide
Preamble:
In a recent poll of current and former OWHC members, the topic of <topic> was
identified as a priority for inclusion in the knowledge capsules project. It is felt that key
messages arising from the work in this area might benefit those who work in areas related
to women’s health (e.g. MOHLTC, the government of Ontario and the new Women’s
Health Institute).
The learnings from the <topic> project are process-oriented rather than content-specific
research findings. For this reason, we are conducting in-depth interviews with those
familiar with these projects in order to document the key “lessons learned” related to the
process of developing and implementing this kind of initiative.
Interview Guide:
Please tell me about the OWHC <topic> initiative, and your role within it.
Probes: when did it start? What were its stated goals and objectives? When did you
become involved?
What specific activities were undertaken in this initiative?
What were the initiative’s main accomplishments?
Probe (if more than one listed): can you rank these?
What were the initiative’s main shortcomings (if any)?
Probe (if more than one listed): can you rank these? To what do you attribute these
shortcomings? (e.g., internal factors, such as resourcing; external factors such as the
wider political climate, etc.)
If you were going to do this over again, what aspects would you keep?
Probe: why were these especially valuable?
What would you do differently?
Probe: why?
What was the most surprising thing to you regarding this initiative?
If you were giving advice to someone thinking about conducting an awareness-raising
initiative for a women’s health topic, what would it be?
Since the completion of the project, as you continue to work in your field, are there any
other recommendations for people conducting this type of awareness-raising initiatives
in the future?
Would you do this again?
Probe: why or why not? If not, what would be required to change your mind?
- 24 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
Appendix 4: OWHC KT Project - Content Extraction Tool
Purpose: This framework guides identification and extraction of key content from the
identified priority areas for this project. Also included is a section on “value-added”
information incorporated into the final information product to make it more relevant and
accessible to decision-makers. Content is extracted from reports available for each topic
and when unavailable, the gaps are flagged and a decision made regarding whether/
how to find and include this information.
NOTES:
1) This framework was developed iteratively, with input from end users sought during
planned focus groups and incorporated using an online revision process.
2) It has two parts:
a) the first sections guide the extraction of specific content from the reports
themselves;
b) the separate “value-added” section at the end is for the information sought,
created and integrated to formulate recommendations (or reiterate those of the
report) and implications for policy (practice, research, education). This includes
comments related to assessment of the methodological quality (and hence utility,
generalizability, etc.) of the content.
From the “Background” Section:
•
How the project came about – what were the factors that led to the study (when
relevant, e.g. because of a controversy)
•
Define the problem, including why it’s important – 1-3 lines
•
Scope/ Context & Purpose of the available content within the Ontario and/or
Canadian context
•
Definitions where necessary
From the “Methods” Section:
•
Very briefly describe the approach and sample (i.e., “this survey was conducted
in March 2005 with 642 randomly sampled Ontario women.”)
Summary of Key Findings
•
This can vary significantly from report to report in terms of the type of findings
available, and how they are reported.
•
In general, key findings should be stated at a very high level and avoid use of
statistics, except basic percentages, proportions, or odds (i.e., “women with
depression were 4 times more likely to also indicate current exposure to partner
violence” or “32% of women in group X had outcome A, compared to 12% of
women in group Y”). Where available, include 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and
a sentence that interprets them (i.e., “32% of women …, however the true effect
can range anywhere from 27% to 37%”)
From the “Discussion” Section:
•
What the study adds to what we know about the issue for women’s health in
Ontario (1-2 lines).
•
Describe any specific limitations to the methods or the generalizability of the
findings as stated by the authors themselves (1-2 lines).
- 25 -
Handbook for Synthesizing Research Reports
From the Report’s “Recommendations”
•
Extract all recommendations/implications of the new data for:
1.
2.
3.
4.
policy
practice
research
education
•
Extract all recommendations/implications for future research based on identification
of existing gaps in knowledge.
•
Extract all information related to cost implications.
•
Extract all information related to the authors’ statement of what the ideal situation
would be and what is needed to make the problem better
Notes on this section:
i. In the reports under review, there are at least two types of recommendations
depending on the type of study. Some reports identify the problem while others
provide recommendations.
ii. This information is often included in the report’s executive summary, but is often
quite vague. Therefore, more concrete examples from the full text might need to be
sought.
iii. There are different levels to the recommendations (i.e., broader health care system,
program development, clinical level HCP enhanced practice) – it is important to be
explicit about what the report is and is not recommending and for whom.
iv. Not all reports provide explicit guidance for each of the 4 areas identified above,
but this should be made clear – if there’s nothing re” “education” then there should
be a heading with “no specific recommendations available” indicated.
“Value-added” information:
(to be generated by the summary team, and/or sought from external sources, including
responding to what the end users indicate)
•
The summary team’s assessment of the methodological quality of the report
[NOTE: how this will be done (what criteria), who will do it, and how it will be reported
need to be decided a priori]
•
New and relevant information available on the topic since completion of the
report.
•
The summary team’s recommendations framed in terms of the implications for the
four areas identified: policy, practice, research, education:
o either re-iterate those from the report if we agree and there’s congruence
with new or external evidence, or
o state different recommendations and be explicit about why they differ from
those of the report (e.g., new evidence)
•
What other policy makers have decided around the topic in other relevant
jurisdictions.
•
Controversies related to the topic (briefly summarize and cite any key materials)
•
Who to contact for more information, or where to look for more information
- 26 -