What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Rapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research. This rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies sought to answer the question: What are the best methodologies to enable a rapid review of research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice?

Related collections

Most cited references 21

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

John Lavis, Govin Permanand, Andrew D Oxman … (2009)

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance?

0 comments Cited 83 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice?

David Hailey, Timothy Lathlean, Karen Cameron … (2008)

Rapid reviews are being produced with greater frequency by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in response to increased pressure from end-user clinicians and policy-makers for rapid, evidence-based advice on health-care technologies. This comparative study examines the differences in methodologies and essential conclusions between rapid and full reviews on the same topic, with the aim of determining the validity of rapid reviews in the clinical context and making recommendations for their future application. Rapid reviews were located by Internet searching of international HTA agency websites, with any ambiguities resolved by further communication with the agencies. Comparator full systematic reviews were identified using the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination HTA database. Data on a number of review components were extracted using standardized data extraction tables, then analysed and reported narratively. Axiomatic differences between all the rapid and full reviews were identified; however, the essential conclusions of the rapid and full reviews did not differ extensively across the topics. For each of the four topics examined, it was clear that the scope of the rapid reviews was substantially narrower than that of full reviews. The methodology underpinning the rapid reviews was often inadequately described. Rapid reviews do not adhere to any single validated methodology. They frequently provide adequate advice on which to base clinical and policy decisions; however, their scope is limited, which may compromise their appropriateness for evaluating technologies in certain circumstances.

0 comments Cited 63 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments.

Jos Kleijnen, Julie Harker (2012)

Commissioners of Health Technology Assessments require timely reviews to attain efficacious decisions on healthcare and treatments. In recent years, there has been an emergence of 'rapid reviews' within Health Technology Assessments; however, there is no known published guidance or agreed methodology within recognised systematic review or Health Technology Assessment guidelines. In order to answer the research question 'What is a rapid review and is methodology consistent in rapid reviews of Health Technology Assessments?', a study was undertaken in a sample of rapid review Health Technology Assessments from the Health Technology Assessment database within the Cochrane Library and other specialised Health Technology Assessment databases to investigate similarities and/or differences in rapid review methodology utilised. In a targeted search to obtain a manageable sample of rapid reviews, the Health Technology Assessment database of The Cochrane Library and six international Health Technology Assessment databases were searched to locate rapid review Health Technology Assessments from 2000 onwards. Each rapid review was examined to investigate the individual methodology used for searching, inclusion screening, quality assessment, data extraction and synthesis. Methods of each rapid review were compared to investigate differences and/or similarities in methodologies used, in comparison with recognised methods for systematic reviews. Forty-six full rapid reviews and three extractable summaries of rapid reviews were included. There was a wide diversity of methodology, with some reviews utilising well-established systematic review methods, but many others diversifying in one or more areas, that is searching, inclusion screening, quality assessment, data extraction, synthesis methods, report structure and number of reviewers. There was a significant positive correlation between the number of recommended review methodologies utilised and length of time taken in months. Despite the number of rapid reviews published within Health Technology Assessments over recent years, there is no agreed and tested methodology and it is unclear how rapid reviews differ from systematic reviews. In a sample of Health Technology Assessment rapid reviews from 2000 to 2011, there was a wide diversity of methodology utilised in all aspects of rapid reviews. There is scope for wider research in this area to investigate the diversity of methods in more depth during each stage of the rapid review process, so that eventually recommendations could be made for clear and systematic methods for rapid reviews, thus facilitating equity and credibility of this type of important review methodology. © 2012 The Authors. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare © 2012 The Joanna Briggs Institute.

0 comments Cited 57 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Health Res Policy Syst

Title: Health research policy and systems

Publisher: Springer Nature

ISSN (Electronic): 1478-4505

ISSN (Print): 1478-4505

Publication date (Electronic): Nov 25 2016

Volume: 14

Issue: 1

Affiliations

[1 ] Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. haby@unimelb.edu.au.

[2 ] Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. haby@unimelb.edu.au.

[3 ] Pan American Health Organization, Brasilia, DF, Brazil.

[4 ] London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

[5 ] Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Diretoria de Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil.

[6 ] Knowledge Management, Bioethics and Research, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, United States of America.

[7 ] McMaster Health Forum, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

[8 ] Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.

Article

Publisher Item ID: 10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7

DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7

PMC ID: 5123411

PubMed ID: 27884208

SO-VID: df4b034f-8466-499c-afbb-b3c3e55612e1

History

Keywords: Evidence-informed decision-making,Health policy,Knowledge translation,Rapid reviews,Research uptake

Data availability:

Keywords: Evidence-informed decision-making, Health policy, Knowledge translation, Rapid reviews, Research uptake

What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Sushruta Journal of Health Policy & Opinion

Most cited references 21

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice?

What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 101

Cited by 137

Most referenced authors 873