Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.
decision-making
evidence synthesis
health policy
health systems
rapid reviews
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Sep 2020
29 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
25
11
2019
accepted:
30
08
2020
entrez:
30
9
2020
pubmed:
1
10
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice. We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere. Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read. Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored. The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice.
METHODS
METHODS
We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored.
PROTOCOL AVAILABILITY
UNASSIGNED
The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32993657
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00624-7
pii: 10.1186/s12961-020-00624-7
pmc: PMC7523380
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
112Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : 142310
Pays : Canada
Références
Antibiotics (Basel). 2018 Aug 06;7(3):
pubmed: 30082596
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Feb;82:47-60
pubmed: 27591906
Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 14;8:68
pubmed: 23767771
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 27;7(2):e012545
pubmed: 28242767
Health Res Policy Syst. 2009 Dec 16;7 Suppl 1:S10
pubmed: 20018100
Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 22;4:183
pubmed: 26693720
Addict Behav. 2019 Mar;90:99-106
pubmed: 30384191
Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 05;5(1):132
pubmed: 27491354
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Feb 5;4(1):e001178
pubmed: 30899562
J Urol. 2018 Dec;200(6):1174-1191
pubmed: 29940246
PLoS Med. 2009 Nov;6(11):e1000141
pubmed: 19936223
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:35-48
pubmed: 16053582
Health Res Policy Syst. 2009 Dec 16;7 Suppl 1:S13
pubmed: 20018103
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Aug 1;4:23
pubmed: 30083391
Front Public Health. 2019 Feb 07;7:14
pubmed: 30792974
BMJ Open. 2014 Dec 23;4(12):e005919
pubmed: 25537782
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):207-14
pubmed: 23381511
Implement Sci. 2016 Aug 18;11(1):117
pubmed: 27538384
Health Expect. 2005 Dec;8(4):352-9
pubmed: 16266423
Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 28;6(1):23
pubmed: 28129795
Implement Sci. 2010 Jul 19;5:56
pubmed: 20642853
Implement Sci. 2018 Jun 22;13(1):84
pubmed: 29929538
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 May 3;15(1):37
pubmed: 28468683
Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 28;5(1):184
pubmed: 27793186
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1:10
pubmed: 22587960
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Oct;21(e2):e341-6
pubmed: 24786378
Health Res Policy Syst. 2013 May 24;11:19
pubmed: 23705832
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 09;10(10):e0140290
pubmed: 26451847
Healthc Policy. 2006 Jan;1(2):21-33
pubmed: 19305650
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 26;15(8):e0238025
pubmed: 32845906
BMC Med. 2015 Sep 16;13:224
pubmed: 26377409
Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 17;6(1):32
pubmed: 28212677
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Nov 25;14(1):83
pubmed: 27884208
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;114:22-29
pubmed: 31185276
Bull World Health Organ. 2011 Jan 1;89(1):54-61
pubmed: 21346891
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 Sep-Oct;9(5):503-16
pubmed: 22835706
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34
pubmed: 26092286
Health Policy Plan. 2011 Jan;26(1):73-82
pubmed: 20547652
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012 Dec;10(4):338-46
pubmed: 23173658
Implement Sci. 2014 Jun 02;9:67
pubmed: 24889015
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2017 Jan-Apr;30(1):84-88
pubmed: 28707643
J Public Health (Oxf). 2010 Dec;32(4):496-505
pubmed: 20435581
Healthc Policy. 2005 Sep;1(1):55-71
pubmed: 19308103
Implement Sci. 2016 Dec 9;11(1):162
pubmed: 27938409
Obes Rev. 2019 Jan;20(1):88-107
pubmed: 30345630
Int J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun;47:15-22
pubmed: 27208635