Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
- PMID: 25874967
- PMCID: PMC4407715
- DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6
Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
Abstract
Background: Health care decision makers often need to make decisions in limited timeframes and cannot await the completion of a full evidence review. Rapid reviews (RRs), utilizing streamlined systematic review methods, are increasingly being used to synthesize the evidence with a shorter turnaround time. Our primary objective was to describe the processes and methods used internationally to produce RRs. In addition, we sought to understand the underlying themes associated with these programs.
Methods: We contacted representatives of international RR programs from a broad realm in health care to gather information about the methods and processes used to produce RRs. The responses were summarized narratively to understand the characteristics associated with their processes and methods. The summaries were compared and contrasted to highlight potential themes and trends related to the different RR programs.
Results: Twenty-nine international RR programs were included in our sample with a broad organizational representation from academia, government, research institutions, and non-for-profit organizations. Responses revealed that the main objectives for RRs were to inform decision making with regards to funding health care technologies, services and policy, and program development. Central themes that influenced the methods used by RR programs, and report type and dissemination were the imposed turnaround time to complete a report, resources available, the complexity and sensitivity of the research topics, and permission from the requestor.
Conclusions: Our study confirmed that there is no standard approach to conduct RRs. Differences in processes and methods across programs may be the result of the novelty of RR methods versus other types of evidence syntheses, customization of RRs for various decision makers, and definition of 'rapid' by organizations, since it impacts both the timelines and the evidence synthesis methods. Future research should investigate the impact of current RR methods and reporting to support informed health care decision making, the effects of potential biases that may be introduced with streamlined methods, and the effectiveness of RR reporting guidelines on transparency.
Similar articles
-
Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250. Health Technol Assess. 2010. PMID: 20501062 Review.
-
Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue.Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 11;4:25. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0009-3. Syst Rev. 2015. PMID: 25875495 Free PMC article.
-
The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1086-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00605.x. Epub 2009 Sep 10. Value Health. 2009. PMID: 19744291
-
Do evidence summaries increase policy-makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews: A systematic review protocol.Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 28;4:122. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0116-1. Syst Rev. 2015. PMID: 26411423 Free PMC article.
-
Designing a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in the Americas region: using the best available evidence and case studies.Implement Sci. 2016 Aug 18;11(1):117. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0472-9. Implement Sci. 2016. PMID: 27538384 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Rapid Reviews to Support Practice: A Guide for Professional Organization Practice Networks.Can J Occup Ther. 2023 Sep;90(3):269-279. doi: 10.1177/00084174221123721. Epub 2022 Oct 13. Can J Occup Ther. 2023. PMID: 36229992 Free PMC article.
-
Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews.Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 18;9(1):162. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01413-7. Syst Rev. 2020. PMID: 32682442 Free PMC article.
-
The Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) in Chile: lessons learned from a year of coordinated efforts.Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2017 Mar 23;43:e36. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2017.36. eCollection 2017. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2017. PMID: 31363358 Free PMC article.
-
Management of post-traumatic epilepsy: An evidence review over the last 5 years and future directions.Epilepsia Open. 2017 Mar 17;2(2):123-144. doi: 10.1002/epi4.12049. eCollection 2017 Jun. Epilepsia Open. 2017. PMID: 29588942 Free PMC article.
-
A rapid research needs appraisal methodology to identify evidence gaps to inform clinical research priorities in response to outbreaks-results from the Lassa fever pilot.BMC Med. 2019 Jun 11;17(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1338-1. BMC Med. 2019. PMID: 31185979 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(2):133–9. - PubMed
-
- Cameron A, Watt A, Lathlean T, Sturm T. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. ASERNIP-S report no. 60 [Internet]. Adelaide (South Australia): Australian Safety & Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures – Surgical (ASERNIP-S); 2007 Jul. [cited 2012 Mar 1]. Available from: http://www.surgeons.org/media/297941/rapidvsfull2007_systematicreview.pdf
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical