Evidence Briefings: Towards a Medium to Transfer Knowledge from Systematic Reviews to Practitioners

Bruno Cartaxo, G. Pinto, Elton R. Vieira, S. Soares
{"title":"Evidence Briefings: Towards a Medium to Transfer Knowledge from Systematic Reviews to Practitioners","authors":"Bruno Cartaxo, G. Pinto, Elton R. Vieira, S. Soares","doi":"10.1145/2961111.2962603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Integrate research evidence with practice is one of the main goals of evidence-based software engineering. However, recent studies show that the connection between systematic reviews and practitioners has not fully established. Goal: This paper presents the first steps towards a medium to transfer knowledge acquired from systematic reviews to practitioners. Method: We selected a set of systematic reviews identified by a tertiary study and extracted their findings to generate one-page Evidence Briefings to serve as mediums. A design specialist defined the briefings structure based on information design and gestalt principles. To evaluate the format and content of the briefings we conducted personal opinion surveys based on two groups: StackExchange users that posted questions in topics related to the reviews, and the authors of the selected reviews themselves. The former had a response rate of 21.9% (32 out 146) and the latter 31.8% (7 out of 22). Results: Practitioners rarely use systematic review research papers as mediums to acquire knowledge, since just 9% have told to do so. Both researchers and practitioners positively evaluated the evidence briefings, since 71% and 82% of the StackExchange users and systematic review authors, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that the briefings' interface is clear. Conclusions: Researchers and practitioners were positive about the content and format of the evidence briefings we proposed. It is also possible to say that there is a gap between practitioners and systematic reviews due to the low percentage of practitioners that consume systematic reviews. The good reception of the evidence briefings from both sides show a possible route to reduce that gap.","PeriodicalId":208212,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962603","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

Abstract

Context: Integrate research evidence with practice is one of the main goals of evidence-based software engineering. However, recent studies show that the connection between systematic reviews and practitioners has not fully established. Goal: This paper presents the first steps towards a medium to transfer knowledge acquired from systematic reviews to practitioners. Method: We selected a set of systematic reviews identified by a tertiary study and extracted their findings to generate one-page Evidence Briefings to serve as mediums. A design specialist defined the briefings structure based on information design and gestalt principles. To evaluate the format and content of the briefings we conducted personal opinion surveys based on two groups: StackExchange users that posted questions in topics related to the reviews, and the authors of the selected reviews themselves. The former had a response rate of 21.9% (32 out 146) and the latter 31.8% (7 out of 22). Results: Practitioners rarely use systematic review research papers as mediums to acquire knowledge, since just 9% have told to do so. Both researchers and practitioners positively evaluated the evidence briefings, since 71% and 82% of the StackExchange users and systematic review authors, respectively, agreed or strongly agreed that the briefings' interface is clear. Conclusions: Researchers and practitioners were positive about the content and format of the evidence briefings we proposed. It is also possible to say that there is a gap between practitioners and systematic reviews due to the low percentage of practitioners that consume systematic reviews. The good reception of the evidence briefings from both sides show a possible route to reduce that gap.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
证据简报:走向将知识从系统评价传递给实践者的媒介
背景:将研究证据与实践相结合是基于证据的软件工程的主要目标之一。然而,最近的研究表明,系统评价与从业人员之间的联系尚未完全建立。目标:本文介绍了迈向将从系统评审中获得的知识传递给实践者的媒介的第一步。方法:我们选择了一组由高等研究确定的系统综述,并提取了他们的发现,生成一页的证据简报,作为媒介。设计专家根据信息设计和格式塔原则定义了简报结构。为了评估简报的格式和内容,我们对两组人进行了个人意见调查:发布与评论相关主题问题的StackExchange用户,以及选定评论的作者自己。前者的应答率为21.9%(146人中32人),后者的应答率为31.8%(22人中7人)。结果:从业者很少使用系统综述研究论文作为获取知识的媒介,因为只有9%的人这样做。研究人员和实践者都积极评价了证据简报,因为分别有71%和82%的StackExchange用户和系统综述作者同意或强烈同意简报的界面是清晰的。结论:研究人员和从业人员对我们提出的证据简报的内容和格式持积极态度。也可以说,在从业者和系统审查之间存在着差距,因为从业者使用系统审查的比例很低。双方对证据简报的良好接受显示了缩小这一差距的可能途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evidence Briefings: Towards a Medium to Transfer Knowledge from Systematic Reviews to Practitioners The Obscure Process of Innovation Assessment: A Report of an Industrial Survey Sustainable Software Development through Overlapping Pair Rotation DIGS: A Framework for Discovering Goals for Security Requirements Engineering The Impact of Task Granularity on Co-evolution Analyses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1