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 Feb 13;22(1):22.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01105-x.

Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers

Esther McSween-Cadieux  1   2 , Julie Lane  3   4 , Quan Nha Hong  5 , Andrée-Anne Houle  4   6 , François Lauzier-Jobin  4 , Eliane Saint-Pierre Mousset  3   4 , Ollivier Prigent  3 , Saliha Ziam  7 , Thomas Poder  8   9 , Alain Lesage  8 , Pierre Dagenais  10
Affiliations

Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers

Esther McSween-Cadieux et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has required evidence to be made available more rapidly than usual, in order to meet the needs of decision makers in a timely manner. These exceptional circumstances have caused significant challenges for organizations and teams responsible for evidence synthesis. They had to adapt to provide rapid responses to support decision-making. This study aimed to document (1) the challenges and adaptations made to produce rapid responses during the pandemic, (2) their perceived usefulness, reported use and factors influencing their use and (3) the methodological adaptations made to produce rapid responses.

Methods: A qualitative study was conducted in 2021 with eight organizations in the health and social services system in Quebec (Canada), including three institutes with a provincial mandate. Data collection included focus groups (n = 9 groups in 8 organizations with 64 participants), interviews with decision makers (n = 12), and a document analysis of COVID-19 rapid responses (n = 128). A thematic analysis of qualitative data (objectives 1 and 2) and a descriptive analysis of documents (objective 3) were conducted.

Results: The results highlight the teams and organizations' agility to deal with the many challenges encountered during the pandemic (e.g., increased their workloads, adoption of new technological tools or work processes, improved collaboration, development of scientific monitoring, adaptation of evidence synthesis methodologies and products). The challenge of balancing rigor and speed was reported by teams and organizations. When available at the right time, rapid responses have been reported as a useful tool for informing or justifying decisions in a context of uncertainty. Several factors that may influence their use were identified (e.g., clearly identify needs, interactions with producers, perceived rigor and credibility, precise and feasible recommendations). Certain trends in the methodological approaches used to speed up the evidence synthesis process were identified.

Conclusions: This study documented rapid responses producers' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec, and decision makers who requested, consulted, or used these products. Potential areas of improvements are identified such as reinforce coordination, improve communication loops, clarify guidelines or methodological benchmarks, and enhance utility of rapid response products for decision makers.

Keywords: COVID-19; Canada; Evidence use; Evidence-informed decision-making; Pandemic; Quebec; Rapid evidence synthesis; Rapid responses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The MHSS partially funded this study but had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Some co-authors are involved in local HTA units as scientific managers.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the documents selected for the document analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Terms used to name the rapid evidence products analyzed
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abou-Setta AM, Jeyaraman M, Attia A, Al-Inany HG, Ferri M, Ansari MT, et al. Methods for developing evidence reviews in short periods of time: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(12):e0165903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165903. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE, Research A for HP and S, Organization WH. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2017. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258698. Accessed 5 Dec 2020.
    1. Munn Z, Twaddle S, Service D, Harrow E, Okwen PM, Schünemann H, et al. Developing guidelines before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2020 doi: 10.7326/M20-4907. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Roche N, Tonia T, Bush A, Brightling C, Kolb M, Dinh-Xuan AT, et al. Guidance production before evidence generation for critical issues: the example of COVID-19. Eur Res Rev. 2020;29(157):200310. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0310-2020. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bobrowski T, Melo-Filho CC, Korn D, Alves VM, Popov KI, Auerbach S, et al. Learning from history: do not flatten the curve of antiviral research! Drug Discov Today. 2020;25(9):1604–1613. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.07.008. - DOI - PMC - PubMed