Cargando…

Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Polisena, Julie, Garritty, Chantelle, Kamel, Chris, Stevens, Adrienne, Abou-Setta, Ahmed M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407715/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25874967
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6
_version_ 1782367949880819712
author Polisena, Julie
Garritty, Chantelle
Kamel, Chris
Stevens, Adrienne
Abou-Setta, Ahmed M
author_facet Polisena, Julie
Garritty, Chantelle
Kamel, Chris
Stevens, Adrienne
Abou-Setta, Ahmed M
author_sort Polisena, Julie
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4407715
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44077152015-04-24 Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods Polisena, Julie Garritty, Chantelle Kamel, Chris Stevens, Adrienne Abou-Setta, Ahmed M Syst Rev Research 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4407715/ /pubmed/25874967 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6 Text en © Polisena et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Polisena, Julie
Garritty, Chantelle
Kamel, Chris
Stevens, Adrienne
Abou-Setta, Ahmed M
Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
title Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
title_full Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
title_fullStr Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
title_full_unstemmed Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
title_short Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
title_sort rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407715/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25874967
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6
work_keys_str_mv AT polisenajulie rapidreviewprogramstosupporthealthcareandpolicydecisionmakingadescriptiveanalysisofprocessesandmethods
AT garrittychantelle rapidreviewprogramstosupporthealthcareandpolicydecisionmakingadescriptiveanalysisofprocessesandmethods
AT kamelchris rapidreviewprogramstosupporthealthcareandpolicydecisionmakingadescriptiveanalysisofprocessesandmethods
AT stevensadrienne rapidreviewprogramstosupporthealthcareandpolicydecisionmakingadescriptiveanalysisofprocessesandmethods
AT abousettaahmedm rapidreviewprogramstosupporthealthcareandpolicydecisionmakingadescriptiveanalysisofprocessesandmethods