[COVID-19 pandemic: preferences and barriers for dissemination of evidence syntheses : Survey of intensive care personnel in Germany]
Christian Seeber,Maria Popp,Joerg J Meerpohl,Falk Fichtner,Anne Werner,Christoph Schmaderer,Christopher Holzmann-Littig,Steffen Dickel,Clemens Grimm,Onnen Moerer,Peter Kranke,AP6 CEOsys,Anke Steckelberg,Astrid Viciano,Carina Benstöm,Georg Holger Wormer,Jörg Wipplinger,Julia Krieger,Karolina Dahms,Kelly Ansems,Julia Lühnen,Marcus Anhäuser,Patrick Meybohm,Stephanie Weibel,Marjo Wijnen-Meijer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-021-01037-z
Abstract:Background: In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge. Objective: Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks. Methods: Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e‑mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e‑mail through DIVI. Results: Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e‑mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents' prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment. Conclusion: Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E‑mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness.