NDLI: Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Moore, Gabriel Redman, Sally D’Este, Catherine Makkar, Steve Turner, Tari
Abstract	Background Rapid reviews are increasingly being used to help policy makers access research in short time frames. A clear articulation of the review’s purpose, questions, scope, methods and reporting format is thought to improve the quality and generalisability of review findings. The aim of the study is to explore the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in improving the perceived clarity of rapid review proposals from the perspective of potential reviewers. To conduct the study, we drew on the Evidence Check program, where policy makers draft a review proposal (a pre knowledge brokering proposal) and have a 1-hour session with a knowledge broker, who re-drafts the proposal based on the discussion (a post knowledge brokering proposal). Methods We asked 30 reviewers who had previously undertaken Evidence Check reviews to examine the quality of 60 pre and 60 post knowledge brokering proposals. Reviewers were blind to whether the review proposals they received were pre or post knowledge brokering. Using a six-point Likert scale, reviewers scored six questions examining clarity of information about the review’s purpose, questions, scope, method and format and reviewers’ confidence that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Each reviewer was allocated two pre and two post knowledge brokering proposals, randomly ordered, from the 60 reviews, ensuring no reviewer received a pre and post knowledge brokering proposal from the same review. Results The results showed that knowledge brokering significantly improved the scores for all six questions addressing the perceived clarity of the review proposal and confidence in meeting policy makers’ needs; with average changes of 0.68 to 1.23 from pre to post across the six domains. Conclusions This study found that knowledge brokering increased the perceived clarity of information provided in Evidence Check rapid review proposals and the confidence of reviewers that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Further research is needed to identify how the knowledge brokering process achieves these improvements and to test the applicability of the findings in other rapid review programs.
Related Links	https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13643-017-0411-0.pdf
Ending Page	8
Page Count	8
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	20464053
DOI	10.1186/s13643-017-0411-0
Journal	Systematic Reviews
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	6
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2017-01-28
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Medicine Public Health Biomedicine Statistics for Life Sciences Health Sciences Knowledge brokering Rapid reviews Commissioned rapid reviews Review literature as topic Knowledge synthesis Evidence summaries Research utilisation Policy-relevant Medicine/Public Health
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Medicine
Journal Impact Factor	6.3/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	4.5/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study

Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: more important than ever before

Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews

Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach

Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful?

Do evidence summaries increase policy-makers’ use of evidence from systematic reviews: A systematic review protocol

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses

Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research

Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study

Similar Documents

Deconstructing knowledge brokering for commissioned rapid reviews: an observational study

Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: more important than ever before

Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews

Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach

Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful?

Do evidence summaries increase policy-makers’ use of evidence from systematic reviews: A systematic review protocol

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses

Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research

Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study