Where do we stand with involving knowledge users in rapid reviews? – a cross-sectional study

Article type
Authors
Affengruber L1, Chapman A1, Gartlehner G1, Gartlehner G2, Griebler U1, Kien C1, Klerings I1, Ledinger D1, Nowak C1, Nussbaumer-Streit B1, Persad E1, Persad E3, Smith M4
1Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Österreich
2RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
3Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
4Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
Background: Rapid reviews (RRs) are vital tools to support timely and efficient evidence-based decision-making in health care. Involving knowledge users (KUs) like patients and the public, clinicians or policymakers can help maximize their relevance. KUs can be involved in 1 or more steps of the RR process, and the extent of involvement can vary. Studies from 2016 and 2019 showed that 32% to 43% of RRs involved KUs to various degrees.
In 2021, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group published methodological guidance explicitly recommending the involvement of KUs in RRs. With the increased demand for RRs and awareness about the relevance of KU involvement in RRs, understanding the current practice of KU involvement in RRs is crucial.
Objectives: We aim to assess the proportion of RRs that involve KUs and if they are associated with factors like review topic, type of commissioner, or use of a methods’ guidance. In addition, we want to gain insight into which groups of KUs are involved in which phases of the RR process and to what extent.
Methods: We are conducting a cross-sectional study of RRs published since 2021. We include any evidence synthesis that uses the word “rapid” to describe their methodology (https://osf.io/gkm58/). Until now, we performed systematic searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Epistemonikos and screened records dually. We aim to draw a random sample of 104 RRs (based on the sample size calculation [Clopper Pearson method]). We will extract RR characteristics, reporting of KU involvement, and details of KU involvement (who, when, how). We will conduct descriptive analysis to calculate the proportion of RRs with KU involvement, factors associated with KU involvement, and current practice of KU involvement.
Results: We aim to complete data analysis by June 2024 to be able to present the results at the Global Evidence Summit in September. Results will provide insights into the current practice of KU involvement in RRs and highlight what is needed to improve KU involvement in RRs in the future.
Relevance and importance to patients: The findings will guide future strategies to amplify KU involvement in RRs, thereby enhancing their significance to patient-centered needs.