NDLI: Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Hartling, Lisa Guise, Jeanne-Marie Hempel, Susanne Featherstone, Robin Mitchell, Matthew D. Motu’apuaka, Makalapua L. Robinson, Karen A. Schoelles, Karen Totten, Annette Whitlock, Evelyn Wilt, Timothy J. Anderson, Johanna Berliner, Elise Gozu, Aysegul Kato, Elisabeth Paynter, Robin Umscheid, Craig A.
Abstract	Background There is increasing demand for rapid reviews and timely evidence synthesis. The goal of this project was to understand end-user perspectives on the utility and limitations of rapid products including evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews. Methods Interviews were conducted with key informants representing: guideline developers (n = 3), health care providers/health system organizations (n = 3), research funders (n = 1), and payers/health insurers (n = 1). We elicited perspectives on important characteristics of systematic reviews, acceptable methods to streamline reviews, and uses of rapid products. We analyzed content of the interview transcripts and identified themes and subthemes. Results Key informants identified the following as critical features of evidence reviews: (1) originating from a reliable source (i.e., conducted by experienced reviewers from an established research organization), (2) addressing clinically relevant questions, and (3) trusted relationship between the user and producer. Key informants expressed strong preference for the following review methods and characteristics: use of evidence tables, quality rating of studies, assessments of total evidence quality/strength, and use of summary tables for results and conclusions. Most acceptable trade-offs to increase efficiencies were limiting the literature search (e.g., limiting search dates or language) and performing single screening of citations and full texts for relevance. Key informants perceived rapid products (particularly evidence inventories and rapid responses) as useful interim products to inform downstream investigation (e.g., whether to proceed with a full review or guideline, direction for future research). Most key informants indicated that evidence analysis/synthesis and quality/strength of evidence assessments were important for decision-making. They reported that rapid reviews in particular were useful for guideline development on narrow topics, policy decisions when a quick turn-around is needed, decision-making for practicing clinicians in nuanced clinical settings, and decisions about coverage by payers/health insurers. Rapid reviews may be more relevant within specific clinical settings or health systems; whereas, broad/national guidelines often need a traditional systematic review. Conclusions Key informants interviewed in our study indicated that evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews have utility in specific decisions and contexts. They indicated that the credibility of the review producer, relevance of key questions, and close working relationship between the end-user and producer are critical for any rapid product. Our findings are limited by the sample size which may have been too small to reach saturation for the themes described.
Related Links	https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13643-017-0425-7.pdf
Ending Page	11
Page Count	11
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	20464053
DOI	10.1186/s13643-017-0425-7
Journal	Systematic Reviews
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	6
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2017-02-17
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Medicine Public Health Biomedicine Statistics for Life Sciences Health Sciences Rapid reviews Systematic reviews Knowledge synthesis Decision-makers End-users Interviews 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

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

Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic

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

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

Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue

Discrete choice experiment to determine preferences of decision-makers in healthcare for different formats of rapid reviews

Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods

A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously?

Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews

Similar Documents

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

Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic

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

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

Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue

Discrete choice experiment to determine preferences of decision-makers in healthcare for different formats of rapid reviews

Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods

A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously?

Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews