Paper 3: Selecting rapid review methods for complex questions related to health policy and system issues

AbstractApproaches for rapid reviews that focus on streamlining systematic review methods are not always suitable for exploring complex policy questions, as developing and testing theories to explain these complexities requires configuring diverse qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. Our objective was therefore to provide a guide to selecting approaches for rapidly (i.e., within days to months) addressing complex questions related to health policy and system issues.We provide a two-stage, transdisciplinary collaborative process to select a rapid review approach to address complex policy questions, which consists of scoping the breadth and depth of the literature and then selecting an optimal approach to synthesis. The first stage (scoping the literature) begins with a discussion with the stakeholders requesting evidence to identify and refine the question for the review, which is then used to conduct preliminary searches and conceptually map the documents identified. In the second stage (selection of an optimal approach), further stakeholder consultation is required to refine and tailor the question and approach to identifying relevant documents to include. The approach to synthesizing the included documents is then guided by the final question, the breadth and depth of the literature, and the time available and can include a static or evolving conceptual framework to code and analyze a range of evidence. For areas already covered extensively by existing systematic reviews, the focus can be on summarizing and integrating the review findings, resynthesizing the primary studies, or updating the search and reanalyzing one or more of the systematic reviews.The choice of approaches for conducting rapid reviews is intertwined with decisions about how to manage projects, the amount of work to be done, and the knowledge already available, and our guide offers support to help make these strategic decisions.

Download Full-text

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

HRB Open Research ◽

10.12688/hrbopenres.13321.1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 80

Author(s):

Claire Beecher ◽

Elaine Toomey ◽

Beccy Maeso ◽

Caroline Whiting ◽

Derek C. Stewart ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Priority Setting ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Rapid Review ◽

High Quality ◽

Rapid Reviews ◽

James Lind Alliance ◽

Research Questions ◽

Priority Setting Partnership

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Download Full-text

What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review

Health Research Policy and Systems ◽

10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 74

Author(s):

Michelle M. Haby ◽

Evelina Chapman ◽

Rachel Clark ◽

Jorge Barreto ◽

Ludovic Reveiz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Health Policy ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Informed Decision ◽

Rapid Review ◽

Informed Decision Making ◽

Policy And Practice ◽

Rapid Reviews ◽

Health Policy And Practice

Download Full-text

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

HRB Open Research ◽

10.12688/hrbopenres.13321.2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 80

Author(s):

Claire Beecher ◽

Elaine Toomey ◽

Beccy Maeso ◽

Caroline Whiting ◽

Derek C. Stewart ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Priority Setting ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Rapid Review ◽

High Quality ◽

Rapid Reviews ◽

James Lind Alliance ◽

Research Questions ◽

Priority Setting Partnership

Download Full-text

VP166 Selecting Rapid Review Methods For Health Technology Assessment

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462317004020 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 33 (S1) ◽

pp. 225-226

Author(s):

Eva Kaltenthaler ◽

Katy Cooper ◽

Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽

Abdullah Pandor ◽

Ruth Wong

Keyword(s):

Health Technology Assessment ◽

Technology Assessment ◽

New Technologies ◽

Health Technology ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Rapid Review ◽

Rapid Reviews ◽

Large Numbers ◽

Key Aspects ◽

Selection Of

INTRODUCTION:Rapid reviews are of increasing importance within Health Technology Assessment (HTA) due to the need for timely evidence to underpin the assessment of new technologies as well as financial constraints. There are many rapid review methods available (1) although there is little guidance as to the most suitable methods (2). A recent paper outlines issues to consider when selecting rapid review methods (3). The aim of this presentation is to present key aspects to consider when selecting rapid review methods.METHODS:We searched the evidence base for guidance on the selection of rapid review methods. We also examined three recently completed systematic reviews to identify rapid review methods used, the reasons for selection and the strengths and weaknesses of each method. Finally we identified key aspects to consider when selecting rapid review methods.RESULTS:The evidence on guidance identified for the selection of rapid review methods was very limited. The analysis of the three reviews found that each review had distinctly different challenges, such as large numbers of relevant trials and heterogeneity in terms of populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes. All reviews included at least ten randomized controlled trials and numerous outcome measures. Three different approaches to the rapid review of the evidence were used in the three reviews. Key themes to consider when selecting rapid review methods were identified. These include: the size and nature of the evidence base, the characteristics of included studies and the expectations of those commissioning the review.CONCLUSIONS:Rapid review methods need to be chosen to fit the needs of the review, each of which may have different challenges. Collaboration between those producing rapid reviews and commissioners is crucial when choosing methods to ensure that the needs of commissioners are met and limitations associated with the chosen methods are understood.

Download Full-text

Acinetobacter baumannii Infections in Hospitalized Patients, Treatment Outcomes

Antibiotics ◽

10.3390/antibiotics10060630 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (6) ◽

pp. 630

Author(s):

Diaa Alrahmany ◽

Ahmed F. Omar ◽

Gehan Harb ◽

Wasim S. El El Nekidy ◽

Islam M. Ghazi

Keyword(s):

Acinetobacter Baumannii ◽

Treatment Outcomes ◽

Antibiotic Treatment ◽

Financial Burden ◽

Opportunistic Pathogen ◽

Hospitalized Patients ◽

Treatment Regimens ◽

Serious Infections ◽

Optimal Approach ◽

Selection Of

Background Acinetobacter baumannii (AB), an opportunistic pathogen, could develop into serious infections with high mortality and financial burden. The debate surrounding the selection of effective antibiotic treatment necessitates studies to define the optimal approach. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of commonly used treatment regimens in hospitalized patients

Download Full-text

Letter to the editor. Healthcare workers on the edge of sanity due to COVID-19: Rapid review of the results of systematic reviews and meta-analyzes

Journal of Clinical Neuroscience ◽

10.1016/j.jocn.2020.11.041 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 83 ◽

pp. 21-24

Author(s):

Ivan Lozada-Martínez ◽

Maria Bolaño-Romero ◽

Luis Moscote-Salazar ◽

Daniela Torres-Llinas ◽

Amit Agrawal

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Rapid Review ◽

Letter To The Editor

Download Full-text

Levels of research evidence in health policy assessment in Malawi

Leadership in Health Services ◽

10.1108/lhs-09-2018-0050 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 32 (2) ◽

pp. 226-250

Author(s):

Patrick Mapulanga ◽

Jaya Raju ◽

Thomas Matingwina

Keyword(s):

Health Policy ◽

Empirical Evidence ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Health Research ◽

Research Evidence ◽

Health Policies ◽

Services Research ◽

Policy Documents ◽

Content Type ◽

Policy Systems

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. Design/methodology/approach The study selected a typology of health policies in Malawi from 2002 to 2017. The study adopted the SPIRIT conceptual framework and assessed the levels of research evidence in health policy, systems and services research using the revised SAGE policy assessment tool. Documentary analysis was used to assess levels of health research evidence in health policies in Malawi. Findings In 29 (96.7 per cent) of the health policies, policy formulators including healthcare directors and managers used generic search engines such as Google or Google Scholar to look for heath research evidence. In 28 (93.3 per cent) of the health policies, they searched for grey literature and other government documents. In only 6 (20 per cent) of the heath policy documents, they used academic literature in a form of journal articles and randomised controlled trials. No systematic reviews or policy briefs were consulted. Overall, in 23 (76.7 per cent) of the health policy documents, health research evidence played a minimal role and had very little influence on the policy documents or decision-making. Research limitations/implications The empirical evidence in the health policy documents are limited because of insufficient research citation, low retrievability of health research evidence in the policy documents and biased selectivity of what constitutes health research evidence. Practical implications The study indicates that unfiltered information (data from policy evaluations and registries) constitutes majority of the research evidence in health policies both in health policy, systems and services research. The study seeks to advocate for the use of filtered information (peer reviewed, clinical trials and data from systematic reviews) in formulating health policies. Originality/value There is dearth of literature on the levels of health research evidence in health policy-making both in health policy, systems and services research. This study seeks to bridge the gap with empirical evidence from a developing country perspective.

Download Full-text

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Measurement of Effect in Research and Clinical Care

Gastroenterology Insights ◽

10.3390/gastroent12020020 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 225-237

Author(s):

Jane Fletcher ◽

Sheldon C. Cooper ◽

Amelia Swift

Keyword(s):

Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Bowel Disease ◽

Core Outcome Set ◽

Core Outcome ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Outcome Set ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Inflammatory Bowel ◽

Selection Of

The measurement of outcomes is key in evaluating healthcare or research interventions in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In patient-centred care, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are central to this evaluation. In this review, we provide an overview of validated, adult disease-specific PROMs developed for use in IBD. Our aim is to assist clinicians and researchers in selection of PROMs to measure outcomes in their patient cohort. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments database of systematic reviews was the primary resource used to identify PROMs used in IBD. Search terms were ‘Crohn’s disease’, ‘ulcerative colitis’, and ‘IBD’. Seven systematic reviews were identified from this search. In addition, the publication by the IBD Core Outcome Set Working Group was used to identify further PROMs. Three systematic reviews were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. From the five included systematic reviews, we identified 21 PROMs and their shortened versions. In conclusion, it does not appear that any one PROM is entirely suitable for both research and clinical practice. Overall, the IBDQ-32 is most widely used in research but has the limitation of cost, whereas the IBD-Control has been recommended in the clinical core outcome set.

Download Full-text

USE OF “KNOWLEDGE HOUSE”, DWS, DMS AND DSS METHODOLOGY BY COMPLETING A COMPETITORS' ANALYSIS IN THE RAILWAY SECTOR

Journal of Business Economics and Management ◽

10.3846/16111699.2016.1251963 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 17 (6) ◽

pp. 1022-1051

Author(s):

Vaidas GAIDELYS ◽

Stasys DAILYDKA

Keyword(s):

Intellectual Capital ◽

Positive Impact ◽

Competitive Intelligence ◽

Sources Of Information ◽

Strategic Decisions ◽

Foreign Companies ◽

Information Accessibility ◽

Use Of Knowledge ◽

Selection Of

In completing a competitors’ analysis in the railway sector by using the “Knowledge House” method, there is frequently a problem of data and information accessibility. The quality of primary information has direct influence on the quality of analytical conclusions. One more condition for the qualitative application of this method is the intellectual capital and experience of the analyst. One should note that in this regard we face another problem, that of selection of proper personnel, on the qualification of whom depends the accuracy of the evaluation and final results, on the basis of which strategic decisions are taken. The main aim of the paper is to assess the opportunities for applications of competitive intelligence methods in the railway sector. The study is using “Knowledge House”, DWS, DMS, DSS methodologies. Having analysed the scientific works the direct scientific sources of information, which are oriented to the application of the methods of competitive intelligence to the railway sector, have not been identified. The paper is absolutely original in that until now the competitive intelligence techniques have not been applied for the railway sector companies. Considering the fact that foreign companies, which compete for freighting at the international level, are regarded as the main competitors of the railway sector, the use of the methods of the competitive intelligence becomes more important while fighting for the part of the market. The competitive intelligence methods and their application to the railway sector companies are little studied. In accordance with application of the relevant methods in other sectors, it can be assumed that these innovative approaches could have a positive impact on the competitiveness of companies in the railway sector and their income.

Download Full-text

DIAGNOSIS AND RISK MANAGEMENT IN DIGITAL AGRICULTURE

EKONOMIKA I UPRAVLENIE: PROBLEMY, RESHENIYA ◽

10.36871/ek.up.p.r.2021.12.04.008 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 (12) ◽

pp. 55-63

Author(s):

Zhanna A. Telegina ◽

◽

Sandzhi V. Koteev ◽

Keyword(s):

Supply And Demand ◽

Strategic Decisions ◽

Supply Chain Networks ◽

Management Measures ◽

High Volatility ◽

The Right ◽

Adequate Management ◽

Selection Of ◽

Hybrid Forms ◽

Agricultural Organization

Agriculture is associated with a number of unique risks due to environmental impacts, high volatility of supply and demand, and political changes. The materials of the article make it possible to diagnose agricultural risks and develop adequate management measures in the digital economy. The choice of a specific management structure in an agricultural organization should be aimed at elimi-nating all forms of contractual hazards detected between the contracting parties at such a distance that trans-action costs are minimized. At the same time, in hybrid forms of organization, such as supply chain networks, the main parameters should be defined: the distribution of decision-making rights, the selection of managers and specialists who have the right to make strategic decisions within the framework of the network offer and apply inter-organizational risk and reward mechanisms within the agricultural organization.

Download Full-text