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
. 2020 Nov 4;9(1):256.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01512-5.

A QuESt for speed: rapid qualitative evidence syntheses as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Linda Biesty  1   2   3 , Pauline Meskell  4   5   6   7 , Claire Glenton  8 , Hannah Delaney  9   10 , Mike Smalle  11 , Andrew Booth  12 , Xin Hui S Chan  13   14 , Declan Devane  4   9   15   16 , Catherine Houghton  4   5   9
Affiliations

A QuESt for speed: rapid qualitative evidence syntheses as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Linda Biesty et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created a sense of urgency in the research community in their bid to contribute to the evidence required for healthcare policy decisions. With such urgency, researchers experience methodological challenges to maintain the rigour and transparency of their work. With this in mind, we offer reflections on our recent experience of undertaking a rapid Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis (QES).

Methods: This process paper, using a reflexive approach, describes a rapid QES prepared during, and in response to, the COVID-19 pandemic.

Findings: This paper reports the methodological decisions we made and the process we undertook. We place our decisions in the context of guidance offered in relation to rapid reviews and previously conducted QESs. We highlight some of the challenges we encountered in finding the balance between the time needed for thoughtfulness and comprehensiveness whilst providing a rapid response to an urgent request for evidence.

Conclusion: The need for more guidance on rapid QES remains, but such guidance needs to be based on actual worked examples and case studies. This paper and the reflections offered may provide a useful framework for others to use and further develop.

Keywords: COVID-19; Qualitative evidence synthesis; Rapid reviews; Review methods; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Knottnerus JA, Tugwell P. Methodological challenges in studying the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;121:A5–A7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campbell F, Weeks L, Booth A, Kaunelis D, Smith A. A scoping review found increasing examples of rapid qualitative evidence synthesis and no methodological guidance. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019;115:160–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.032. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Houghton C, Meskell P, Delaney H, Smalle M, Glenton C, Booth A, Chan XHS, Devane D, Biesty LM. Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers’ adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020, 4:CD013582. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013582. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
    1. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, Perrier L, Hutton B, Moher D, Strauss SE. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine. 2015;13:224. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed