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
. 2024 Jan 19;29(1):55-61.
doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112070.

Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users

Affiliations

Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users

Chantelle Garritty et al. BMJ Evid Based Med. .

Abstract

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

Keywords: Evidence-Based Practice; Methods; Systematic Reviews as Topic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Modes of involving knowledge users.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Klerings I, Robalino S, Booth A. n.d. Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on literature search. BMJ Evid Based Med 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112079 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nussbaumer Streit B, Sommer I, Hamel C. n.d. Et al.rapid reviews methods series: guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. BMJ Evid Based Med 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112185 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Devane D. n.d. Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the certainty of evidence in rapid reviews – a practical guide. BMJ Evid Based Med 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112111 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. . Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;129:74–85. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hartling L, Guise J-M, Hempel S, et al. . Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews. Syst Rev 2017;6. 10.1186/s13643-017-0425-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed