Type of evidence
Quality is an important criterion in order to make judgements on the value of evidence. To enable this, searches can be refined to only include evidence of ‘high quality’ as well as the ‘wider evidence-base’.
Evidence of the highest quality
This category represents the evidence that would be most likely be accepted for inclusion in a systematic review. It includes systematic literature reviews; randomised controlled trials/clinical trials; and peer-reviewed qualitative studies (minimum 80 participants) [1]. Such information is typically used to make evidence-based decisions.
The wider evidence base
This category represents the evidence that would most likely not be accepted for inclusion in a systematic review. However, it represents a body of knowledge that is typically used to make evidence-informed decisions. It may include:
- qualitative studies (peer reviewed, less than 80 participants)
- case studies / examples / early findings from pilots / research in progress
- opinion surveys / patient surveys / questionnaires / focus groups
- theory / economic modelling
- policy documents and papers
- expert writer opinion / books / unpublished theses / non-systematic reviews
- anecdote / conference proceedings
Has any evidence been excluded?
WSDAN only cites studies where evidence of ‘impact’ is provided. This includes individual or population-based outcomes (such as health outcomes, changes in dependency levels, user experiences) as well as system outcomes (such as cost-effectiveness, rates of emergency admissions, bed utilisation). The database does not contain evidence reporting on organisational development.
WSDAN places no restrictions on the source of the evidence that may be included in the database. Hence, the database may include publicly-available evidence published or sponsored by telecare and telehealth vendors. Users of the wider-evidence must therefore treat with caution the information available both in terms of its quality and potential subjectivity.
Through listing sources of information in the wider evidence base, WSDAN is not in any way accrediting or attributing credibility or value to the information provided.
Notes
1. The selection criteria is based on criteria for inclusion in a systematic review undertaken in Barlow, James, Singh, Debbie, Bayer, Steffen, Curry, Richard (2007) A systematic review of the benefits of home telecare for frail elderly people and those with long-term conditions; Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 13: 172-179