Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Healthcare decision makers often make decisions under limited timeframes that preclude the completion of more comprehensive evidence synthesis. Rapid reviews (RRs), using streamlined systematic review methods, are used frequently for evidence synthesis to support such decisions.
Objectives: Our primary objective was to describe the processes and methods used across international programs to produce RRs. We also sought to understand the underlying themes associated with these programs and to identify research opportunities in rapid review methods and impact.
Methods: We contacted representatives of healthcare RR programs to inquire about their methods and processes. The characteristics of each program’s processes and methods were summarized and compared to highlight potential themes and trends related to the practice of RRs. In addition, knowledge gaps to inform research priorities in RRs were identified.
Results: Twenty-nine RR programs representing academia, government, research institutions, and not-for-profit organizations participated in our survey. Responses revealed that the main objectives for RRs were to inform decision making on funding healthcare technologies, services and policy, and program development. Central themes influencing the process and methods used were timelines, available resources, the complexity and sensitivity of the research topics, and proprietary nature of the product.
Conclusions: Observed differences in processes and methods across programs may result from the continuous development of RR methods, customization of RRs for decision makers, and definition of ‘rapid’ by organizations. The primary research priority is to develop a typology of RRs to understand the strengths and limitations of various RR forms better and the level of synthesis performed. Future research also should investigate the impact of RR methods and reporting to support informed healthcare decisions, the effects of potential biases that may be introduced with streamlined methods, and the effectiveness of RR reporting guidelines on transparency.
Objectives: Our primary objective was to describe the processes and methods used across international programs to produce RRs. We also sought to understand the underlying themes associated with these programs and to identify research opportunities in rapid review methods and impact.
Methods: We contacted representatives of healthcare RR programs to inquire about their methods and processes. The characteristics of each program’s processes and methods were summarized and compared to highlight potential themes and trends related to the practice of RRs. In addition, knowledge gaps to inform research priorities in RRs were identified.
Results: Twenty-nine RR programs representing academia, government, research institutions, and not-for-profit organizations participated in our survey. Responses revealed that the main objectives for RRs were to inform decision making on funding healthcare technologies, services and policy, and program development. Central themes influencing the process and methods used were timelines, available resources, the complexity and sensitivity of the research topics, and proprietary nature of the product.
Conclusions: Observed differences in processes and methods across programs may result from the continuous development of RR methods, customization of RRs for decision makers, and definition of ‘rapid’ by organizations. The primary research priority is to develop a typology of RRs to understand the strengths and limitations of various RR forms better and the level of synthesis performed. Future research also should investigate the impact of RR methods and reporting to support informed healthcare decisions, the effects of potential biases that may be introduced with streamlined methods, and the effectiveness of RR reporting guidelines on transparency.