Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Oct 6:4:e2522.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.2522. eCollection 2016.

Expediting evidence synthesis for healthcare decision-making: exploring attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews using Q methodology

Shannon E Kelly  1 , David Moher  2 , Tammy J Clifford  3
Affiliations

Expediting evidence synthesis for healthcare decision-making: exploring attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews using Q methodology

Shannon E Kelly et al. PeerJ. .

Abstract

Background: Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use evidence-informed policy and practice approaches. A range of opinions and viewpoints on rapid reviews is thought to exist; however, no research to date has formally captured these views. This paper aims to explore evidence producer and knowledge user attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews.

Methods: A Q methodology study was conducted to identify central viewpoints about rapid reviews based on a broad topic discourse. Participants rank-ordered 50 text statements and explained their Q-sort in free-text comments. Individual Q-sorts were analysed using Q-Assessor (statistical method: factor analysis with varimax rotation). Factors, or salient viewpoints on rapid reviews, were identified, interpreted and described.

Results: Analysis of the 11 individual Q sorts identified three prominent viewpoints: Factor A cautions against the use of study design labels to make judgements. Factor B maintains that rapid reviews should be the exception and not the rule. Factor C focuses on the practical needs of the end-user over the review process.

Conclusion: Results show that there are opposing viewpoints on rapid reviews, yet some unity exists. The three factors described offer insight into how and why various stakeholders act as they do and what issues may need to be resolved before increase uptake of the evidence from rapid reviews can be realized in healthcare decision-making environments.

Keywords: Attitude; Evidence producer; Evidence synthesis; Knowledge user; Opinion; Q method; Rapid review; Time factor; Viewpoint.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Tammy J. Clifford is an employee of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Shannon E. Kelly and David Moher declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Steps in Q methodology.
(Cross, 2005).
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fixed distribution for the Q-set.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1972;21(1):1–9. doi: 10.1037/h0031930. - DOI
    1. Akhtar-Danesh N, Dehghan M, Morrison KM, Fonseka S. Parents’ perceptions and attitudes on childhood obesity: a Q-methodology study. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. 2011;23(2):67–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00584.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brown SR. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1980. [5 October 2016].
    1. Brown SR. A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity. 1993;16(3/4):91–138.
    1. Coates V. Keynote address: rapid reviews and their impact on future directions for health technology assessment. CADTH Rapid Reviews Summit; Vancouver, BC. February; 2015. [3 February 2015].