Search

Your search keyword '"Jozef Suvada"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Author "Jozef Suvada" Publication Year Range Last 3 years
2 results on '"Jozef Suvada"'

1. Knowledge mobilization activities to support decision-making by youth, parents, and adults using a systematic and living map of evidence and recommendations on COVID-19: protocol for three randomized controlled trials and qualitative user-experience studies

Author

Rana Charide, Lisa Stallwood, Matthew Munan, Shahab Sayfi, Lisa Hartling, Nancy J. Butcher, Martin Offringa, Sarah Elliott, Dawn P. Richards, Joseph L. Mathew, Elie A. Akl, Tamara Kredo, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Ashley Motillal, Ami Baba, Matthew Prebeg, Jacqueline Relihan, Shannon D. Scott, Jozef Suvada, Maicon Falavigna, Miloslav Klugar, Tamara Lotfi, Adrienne Stevens, Kevin Pottie, and Holger J. Schünemann

Subjects
eCOVID RecMap, COVID-19, Plain language recommendation, Standard language versions, Randomized controlled trial, Knowledge mobilization, Medicine (General), R5-920
Abstract

Abstract Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public’s understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap). Methods and analysis This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population’s results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. Ethics and dissemination Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990 . Registered on May 3, 2022

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. An evaluation of the COVID-19 recommendation map identified diverging clinical and public health guidance

Author

Zil H. Nasir, Dominik Mertz, Robby Nieuwlaat, Nancy Santesso, Tamara Lotfi, Ashley Motilall, Lorenzo Moja, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Miloslav Klugar, Alexis F. Turgeon, Joseph L. Mathew, Carlos Canelo-Aybar, Kevin Pottie, Omar Dewidar, Miranda W. Langendam, Alfonso Iorio, Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Joerg J. Meerpohl, Signe Flottorp, Tamara Kredo, Thomas Piggott, Micayla Mathews, Amir Qaseem, Derek K. Chu, Peter Tugwell, Jitka Klugarová, Harrison Nelson, Heba Hussein, Jozef Suvada, Ignacio Neumann, Holger J. Schünemann, Epidemiology and Data Science, APH - Methodology, and APH - Quality of Care

Subjects
Discordance, content analysis, quantitative analysis, Epidemiology, practice guideline, education, COVID-19, Guidelines, Recommendations, Article, medical research, clinical practice, Divergence, coronavirus disease 2019, evaluation study, publication, GRADE, health care policy, qualitative analysis, Humans, controlled study, Public Health, quality control
Abstract

Objectives: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the “COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization” platform. Study Design and Setting: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. Results: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. Conclusion: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence. © 2022

Published
2022

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results