VP201 From A Systematic Review To Addressing Evidence Gaps

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:In both health care and social services it is important to continuously summarize and analyze existing research in the form of systematic reviews. At the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) (www.SBU.se) we collect the evidence gaps identified by systematic reviews in a database. These evidence gaps are methods used in health care/social services for which there is not enough good quality research available. By analyzing this database we can highlight populations or methods where evidence gaps are more frequent. This knowledge can be used to find areas that might need assistance in developing research structure and also when arranging research prioritization processes involving patients, consumers and clinicians.METHODS:Systematic reviews and evidence maps (methodical collections of systematic reviews) are used by SBU to identify evidence gaps. SBU has adapted the James Lindh alliance approach to give patients, consumers, relatives and clinicians the opportunity to give their view of what research they find most important to execute. SBU also collaborates with governmental research funders to communicate the content of the SBU database.RESULTS:A prioritizing process regarding evidence gaps within Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)-treatment has been finalized (1). This was accomplished by people with ADHD and caretakers, as well as clinicians and staff. Another prioritization process on the topic of treatments for injuries after vaginal birth is ongoing. In November 2016 the Swedish government presented the research policy bill where they, based on analyses of the SBU database, pointed out areas of specific importance in future research.CONCLUSIONS:It is of great importance that evidence gaps get addressed and that new research is promoted in order to fill these gaps. In areas where there are numerous gaps, prioritizations involving different stakeholders is needed. Considering areas with large amounts of evidence gaps the primary focus might be on building infrastructure surrounding research before research calls can be directed towards these areas.