scholarly journals Rapid reviews as an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in education

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Wollscheid ◽  
Janice Tripney
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Method ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews using abbreviated systematic review methods are of increasing importance for evidence-informed decision-making in education, although there is little guidance about the most suitable approach. Three recently completed rapid review reports are compared to inform discussions on the utility of this type of review in education and to highlight appropriate methods for producing evidence syntheses in a limited time frame. Rapid review methods need to be chosen to fit the needs of the review, which involves: thinking broadly about different kinds of team experience and expertise; estimating the size and nature of the literature to be reviewed; considering the review purpose and nature of the topic; choosing an appropriate synthesis method for the review purpose, evidence base and reviewers’ expertise; fully describing the review approach, and discussing the potential limitations of chosen methods; and understanding the anticipated audiences and tailoring outputs accordingly. Rapid reviews to address urgent and high-priority questions provide the benefits of timeliness and reduced resource requirements. However, it is crucial to understand caveats and limitations to the rapid conduct of evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes. This article offers guidance to support researchers, postgraduate students and commissioners who wish to conduct rapid reviews in a transparent and systematic way, addressing complex questions of relevance to evidence-informed decision-making in education.

scholarly journals Participation in the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools’ Knowledge Broker Mentoring Program: a public health inspector perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-16
Author(s):  
Andrea Powers ◽  
T. Pelletier ◽  
R. Ray ◽  
A. Reynolds ◽  
C. Howarth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Knowledge Broker ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Mentoring Program ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Successful Completion ◽  
Time Commitment

Although evidence-informed decision making is an important part of the field of public health inspection, finding the time to stay informed of current research can be a challenge amidst day-to-day job expectations. This article will explore how two Public Health Inspectors (PHIs) from Ottawa Public Health, a municipal public health unit in Ontario, incorporated evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) into their work. They built their EIDM skills through participating in the 18-month Knowledge Broker (KB) Mentoring Program offered by the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. The program required a substantial time commitment, including nine in-person workshop days and dedicated hours to practice research appraisal skills and to complete a rapid review. The inspectors were approved and supported to spend the necessary time; however, they still found it difficult to designate hours for learning while balancing their frontline inspection workload. This article will share observations about the PHI’s involvement, including benefits and challenges as well as factors that facilitated their successful completion of the KB Mentoring Program.

scholarly journals The Knowledge Broker Mentoring Program: Developing capacity for evidence-informed decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Howarth ◽  
M Steinberg ◽  
S Neil-Sztramko ◽  
M Dobbins
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Knowledge Broker ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Mentoring Program ◽  
Informed Decision Making

Abstract Background Evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) is important to ensure that practice is evidence-informed and resources are used efficiently and effectively. However, public health professionals can face barriers to EIDM. Knowledge Brokers can support and champion EIDM within an organization. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) developed a Knowledge Broker (KB) Mentoring program, a hands-on mentorship program to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making. Objectives The objectives of the KB Mentoring program are to build individual and organizational capacity for evidence-informed decision making. The program takes place over 20 months and includes an organizational assessment, nine face-to-face workshop days, monthly webinars, completion of a rapid review, and a period post-program to connect with mentors. Participating cohorts are evaluated qualitatively. Results To date, two cohorts of five organizations each have completed the program (n = 56 participants). At the individual level, participants reported increased: confidence; EIDM knowledge and skills; and interpersonal connections. At the organizational level, the groups reported conducting rapid reviews, critically appraising evidence, and using evidence in program planning decisions. Additionally, organizations have put in place ongoing supports to build EIDM capacity. Participants noted that they would like more support both before and after the program. This recommendation was put in place for the third cohort, currently in progress. Conclusions Participants indicated the KB mentoring program was high quality and increased EIDM capacity and behaviour in their organizations. This innovative program is important across settings and countries as public health continues to face changes to public health practice. In order to scale up the program to diverse geographic settings, an online KB mentoring program is currently in development. Key messages Knowledge Broker mentoring supports public health practitioners to use evidence in practice. Knowledge broker mentoring raises the confidence, knowledge, skills, and connections of participants.

DEFINING RAPID REVIEWS: A MODIFIED DELPHI CONSENSUS APPROACH

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon E. Kelly ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Tammy J. Clifford
Keyword(s):  
Decision Maker ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Synthesis Process ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Rapid Reviews

Objectives: Rapid reviews are characterized as an accelerated evidence synthesis approach with no universally accepted methodology or definition. This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to develop a comprehensive set of defining characteristics for rapid reviews that may be used as a functional definition.Methods: Expert panelists with knowledge in rapid reviews and evidence synthesis were identified. In the first round, panelists were asked to answer a seventeen-item survey addressing a variety of rapid review topics. Results led to the development of statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews that were circulated to experts for agreement in a second survey round and further revised in a third round. Consensus was reached if ≥70 percent of experts agreed and there was stability in free-text comments.Results: A panel of sixty-six experts participated. Consensus was reached on ten of eleven statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews. According to the panel, rapid reviews aim to meet the requirements and timelines of a decision maker and should be conducted in less time than a systematic review. They use a variety of approaches to accelerate the evidence synthesis process, tailor the methods conventionally used to carry out systematic reviews, and use the most rigorous methods that the delivery time frame will allow.Conclusions: This study achieved consensus on ten statements describing the defining characteristics of rapid reviews based on the opinion of a panel of knowledgeable experts. Areas of disagreement were also highlighted. Findings emphasize the role of the decision maker and stress the importance of transparent reporting.

scholarly journals The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Supporting evidence-informed decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Howarth ◽  
S Neil-Sztramko ◽  
M Dobbins
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Public Health Professionals ◽  
The World

Abstract Background Public health continuously evolves to address an uncertain future, and public health professionals must effectively and efficiently adapt to changes. Evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) is one way to adapt to change. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) provides high quality resources, training and mentorship to support the EIDM process through both in-person and distance-based formats. Freely accessible resources including online training opportunities can help public health professionals globally put evidence into practice and be ready to respond to change. Objectives The NCCMT's work is driven by the belief that everyone deserves optimal health and well-being and this can be achieved by using the best available evidence in practice. Our training and education resources include thirteen online learning modules, an EIDM skills assessment, video series, a rapid review guidebook and regular webinars, amongst others. These resources are self-paced and they can be accessed when and where it is most convenient for public health professionals. Results The NCCMT's resources are highly accessed, with over 320, 000 visits to the NCCMT website from around the world from April 2018-March 2019. There were also over 42,000 downloads of knowledge products in the same time period. The NCCMT's resources have been integrated into public health organizations and curriculum in public health postsecondary programs in Canada. We are continuously evolving by engaging our users. We will be launching an updated version of our Learning Centre in April 2020. Conclusions The NCCMT houses useful resources for all public health professionals to learn about finding, understanding, and using evidence. Public health professionals from around the world have used the NCCMT's educational resources to put evidence into practice. The NCCMT is committed to working with global organizations to support them to achieve their EIDM goals. Key messages The NCCMT supports public health professionals to use the best available evidence in practice. The NCCMT offers high quality resources, training and mentorship to public health professionals.

scholarly journals Acting in the Face of Evidentiary Ambiguity, Bias, and Absence Arising from Systematic Reviews in Applied Environmental Science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trina Rytwinski ◽  
Steven J Cooke ◽  
Jessica J Taylor ◽  
Dominique Roche ◽  
Paul A Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Synthesis Method ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Evidence-based decision-making often depends on some form of a synthesis of previous findings. There is growing recognition that systematic reviews, which incorporate a critical appraisal of evidence, are the gold standard synthesis method in applied environmental science. Yet, on a daily basis, environmental practitioners and decision-makers are forced to act even if the evidence base to guide them is insufficient. For example, it is not uncommon for a systematic review to conclude that an evidence base is large but of low reliability. There are also instances where the evidence base is sparse (e.g., one or two empirical studies on a particular taxa or intervention), and no additional evidence arises from a systematic review. In some cases, the systematic review highlights considerable variability in the outcomes of primary studies, which in turn generates ambiguity (e.g., potentially context specific). When the environmental evidence base is ambiguous, biased, or lacking of new information, practitioners must still make management decisions. Waiting for new, higher validity research to be conducted is often unrealistic as many decisions are urgent. Here, we identify the circumstances that can lead to ambiguity, bias, and the absence of additional evidence arising from systematic reviews and provide practical guidance to resolve or handle these scenarios when encountered. Our perspective attempts to highlight that, with evidence synthesis, there may be a need to balance the spirit of evidence-based decision-making and the practical reality that management and conservation decisions and action is often time sensitive.

scholarly journals Can We Build an Evidence Base on the Impact of Systems Thinking for Wicked Problems? Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane T. Finegood
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Policies And Programs ◽  
The Impact

The published literature on the application of systems thinking to influence policies and programs has grown in recent years. The original article by Haynes et al and the subsequent commentaries have focused on the upstream connection between capacity building for systems thinking and systems informed decision-making. This commentary explores the downstream connection between systems-informed decision-making and broader impacts on the health system, the health of the population and other economic and social benefits. Storytelling, systems-based syntheses and systems intervention principles are explored as approaches to strengthen the evidence base. For systems thinking to gain broader acceptance and application to complex health-related challenges, we need more of an evidence base demonstrating impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document