Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-31-open-access-and-availabi...
Dear Simon and all,
Many thanks for your message. This raises a few other questions that I would love you all to consider and comment on (please send comments to: hifa@hifaforums.org ):
1. What is the impact of open access to original primary research on the development of evidence syntheses or systematic reviews? Do paywalls continue to be a major problem for evidence synthesis teams, even though they may have access to institutional subscriptions?
2. How common is it for evidence syntheses or systematic reviews to be behind a paywall? What difference could it make if all were available open access?
3. To what extent do health professionals in different contexts require access to the full text of systematic reviews? What subset of health professionals require such access?
4. What is the relative value of clinical guidelines (rigorously produced and based on evidence synthesis) compared to systematic reviews for different types of health professional? (Is it fair to assume that most health professionals would use guidelines and other derivative products in preference to systematic reviews in order to inform healthcare decisions?)
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org