Table 3 Perceived usefulness of message content
Response option | Policy-makers (n = 71) | Practitioners (n = 70) | Estimate 95% CI | All (n = 141) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | Rank | Mean (SD) | Rank | Mean (SD) | Rank | ||
A brief simple summary of the research, key findings and implications | 16 (11.0) | 1 | 15 (8.2) | 2 | 1.29 (−1.95, 4.52) | 16 (9.7) | 1 |
Evidence-based recommendations regarding a future course of action | 13 (7.2) | 3 | 15 (7.2) | 1 | −2.41 (−4.80, −0.02) | 14 (7.3)a | 2 |
Data and statistical summaries or presentations of the evidence to describe the impact of a health issue or intervention | 15 (14.2) | 2 | 12 (8.5) | 3 | 3.16 (−0.75, 7.08) | 13 (11.8) | 3 |
A description of the alignment of the research with local policy or practice priorities | 10 (9.2) | 4 | 10 (8.2) | 4 | 0.06 (−2.85, 2.96) | 10 (8.7) | 4 |
Assessments regarding the quality or certainty of the evidence | 10 (6.3) | 5 | 10 (6.5) | 5 | −0.28 (−2.40, 1.85) | 10 (6.4) | 5 |
A description of the health issue or problem the research sought to address | 9 (7.3) | 6 | 9 (8.4) | 7 | 0.10 (−2.53, 2.73) | 9 (7.9) | 6 |
A complete and detailed description of research methods and findings | 6 (5.7) | 10 | 9 (13.2) | 6 | −2.92 (−6.30, 0.46) | 8 (10.2) | 7 |
An assessment or description of the (in)consistency of the research findings with the broader scientific literature | 7 (4.6) | 8 | 7 (6.0) | 8 | −0.15 (−1.92, 1.63) | 7 (5.3) | 8 |
An assessment or description of the context in which the evidence was generated | 7 (5.4) | 9 | 7 (5.3) | 9 | −0.60 (−2.36, 1.17) | 7 (5.3) | 9 |
The use of narrative, story or testimonial to describe the impact of a health issue or intervention | 7 (6.4) | 7 | 6 (5.7) | 10 | 1.75 (−0.26, 3.75) | 6 (6.1) | 10 |