Rapid reviews as an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in education

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.

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

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.

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

Approaches 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.

2020 Syndemic: Convergence of COVID-19, Gender-Based Violence, and Racism Pandemics

Objective To conduct a rapid knowledge synthesis of literature on the social determinants of mental health of racialized women exposed to gender-based violence (GBV) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We adapted the Cochrane Rapid Reviews method and were guided by an equity lens in conducting rapid reviews on public health issues. Four electronic databases (Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, ProQuest, and EBSCO), electronic news media, Google Scholar, and policy documents were searched for literature between January 2019 and October 2020 with no limitations for location. Fifty-five articles qualified for the review. Results Health emergencies heighten gender inequalities in relation to income, employment, job security, and working conditions. Household stress and pandemic-related restrictions (social distancing, closure of services) increase women’s vulnerability to violence. Systemic racism and discrimination intensify health disparities. Conclusion Racialized women are experiencing a 2020 Syndemic: a convergence of COVID-19, GBV, and racism pandemics, placing their wellbeing at a disproportionate risk. GBV is a public health issue and gender-responsive COVID-19 programming is essential. Anti-racist and equity-promoting policies to GBV service provision and disaggregated data collection are required.

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

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.