Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Time and resources constrain both clinicians and policymakers in guideline and policy development to support health systems. Systematic review (SR) production timelines are often too long and resource-intensive. Accordingly, rapid reviews (RR) attempt to meet decision-maker needs within available time, financial, and staffing resources. There is not a single standard for RRs, and questions exist about the appropriate situations for their use.
Objectives: To describe the ways in which three organizations develop RR, how they are used to inform clinical and health policy decisions, and to describe their appropriateness and applicability.
Methods: Descriptive case studies from three North American research organizations producing RRs for health policy decisions.
Results: The Ottawa Health Research Institute (OHRI), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Center for Evidence-based Policy (CEBP) collectively produce over 500 RRs annually. RRs generally are developed using methods customized to meet client needs and completed within weeks. Three case studies illustrating how decision makers use RRs to support evidence-informed health policy decisions: 1) CADTH: Screening for oral cancer using light-based techniques to inform a non-coverage decision and avert unnecessary spending; 2) CEBP: Inferior vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism that resulted in one strong coverage recommendation for Oregon Medicaid; 3) OHRI: Use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers caring for patients with Ebola to inform World Health Organization PPE guidelines.
Conclusions: The RR approach to evidence synthesis has been well-accepted by public decision makers and useful to help inform practice and coverage policies across these case examples. While the appropriateness of RRs, with methodological shortcuts relative to SRs, remains uncertain for questions that require high levels of methodological rigor, transparency can help to inform users about potential limitations. The use of RRs can support evidence-informed policy development, particularly in time-sensitive and resource-limited situations.
Objectives: To describe the ways in which three organizations develop RR, how they are used to inform clinical and health policy decisions, and to describe their appropriateness and applicability.
Methods: Descriptive case studies from three North American research organizations producing RRs for health policy decisions.
Results: The Ottawa Health Research Institute (OHRI), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Center for Evidence-based Policy (CEBP) collectively produce over 500 RRs annually. RRs generally are developed using methods customized to meet client needs and completed within weeks. Three case studies illustrating how decision makers use RRs to support evidence-informed health policy decisions: 1) CADTH: Screening for oral cancer using light-based techniques to inform a non-coverage decision and avert unnecessary spending; 2) CEBP: Inferior vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism that resulted in one strong coverage recommendation for Oregon Medicaid; 3) OHRI: Use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers caring for patients with Ebola to inform World Health Organization PPE guidelines.
Conclusions: The RR approach to evidence synthesis has been well-accepted by public decision makers and useful to help inform practice and coverage policies across these case examples. While the appropriateness of RRs, with methodological shortcuts relative to SRs, remains uncertain for questions that require high levels of methodological rigor, transparency can help to inform users about potential limitations. The use of RRs can support evidence-informed policy development, particularly in time-sensitive and resource-limited situations.