To solicit experiences with and perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policy makers, industry, journal editors, and health care providers.
Study Design and Setting
An international survey of rapid review producers and modified Delphi.
Results
Forty rapid review producers responded on our survey (63% response rate). Eighty-eight rapid reviews with 31 different names were reported. Rapid review commissioning organizations were predominantly government (78%) and health care (58%) organizations. Several rapid review approaches were identified, including updating the literature search of previous reviews (92%); limiting the search strategy by date of publication (88%); and having only one reviewer screen (85%), abstract data (84%), and assess the quality of studies (86%). The modified Delphi included input from 113 stakeholders on the rapid review approaches from the survey. Approach 1 (search limited by date and language; study selection by one reviewer only, and data abstraction and quality appraisal conducted by one reviewer and one verifier) was ranked the most feasible (72%, 81/113 responses), with the lowest perceived risk of bias (12%, 12/103); it also ranked second in timeliness (37%, 38/102) and fifth in comprehensiveness (5%, 5/100).
Conclusion
Rapid reviews have many names and approaches, and some methods might be more desirable than others.
Introduction
What is new?
Key findings
•
Eighty-eight rapid review products reporting numerous streamlined methods were identified. More than 30 different terms were used to describe a rapid review. The primary rationale for conducting a rapid review was the decision makers' need for timely access to information. The commissioning agency was often a government agency or health care organization. Through the modified Delphi approach, different issues related to rapid reviews were identified and one rapid review approach (search limited by date and language; study selection by one reviewer only, and data abstraction and quality appraisal conducted by one reviewer and one verifier) was ranked the highest compared to the others, suggesting that some streamlined steps might be more desirable than others.
What this adds to what was known?
•
This research provides up-to-date information on the experiences and perceptions of a range of stakeholders regarding rapid reviews.
What is the implication and what should change now?
•
Numerous knowledge synthesis centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, yet few studies have evaluated the accuracy, comprehensiveness, potential risk of bias, timeliness, and feasibility of rapid review approaches.
•
Further research on rapid reviews is warranted, such as the development of formal method guidance for rapid reviews and a prospective study comparing the results of rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews on the same topic is necessary.
The methods for the conduct of a systematic review are well established [1], [2], [3], [4]. Rapid reviews are knowledge synthesis products in which certain aspects of the recommended systematic review process are modified or omitted to produce timely information [5]. A formal definition of a rapid review does not exist [5]. However, one definition that has been proposed is “a rapid review is a type of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a shorter period of time” [5].
Numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally. Many health technology assessment agencies are conducting rapid reviews in response to requests from decision-making agencies [6]. For example, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH; www.cadth.ca) has conducted more than 3,000 rapid reviews [7], and the US ECRI Institute (www.ecri.org) has conducted more than 4,000 rapid reviews [8] in the past decade alone. Rapid reviews are increasingly being published in journals [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], including a recent example in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology [14].
Evidence suggests that decision makers are currently using rapid reviews to inform their decision-making processes. Indeed, surveys of policy makers indicate that evidence from rapid reviews influenced decision making in most cases (>70%) [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Rapid reviews have been noted as being particularly useful for urgent and emergent decision making [6].
A recent article summarized evidence from 12 review articles of rapid reviews [20]. Inconsistency in definitions, methods, and applications was identified. In a related article, more than 35 different rapid reviews produced by 20 different organizations were summarized [21]. Four different types of rapid reviews were identified, including inventories, rapid responses, rapid reviews, and automated approaches, which ranged in timeliness from 5 minutes (computer algorithm in which users can enter a query) to 8 months [21].
Although numerous knowledge synthesis centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have evaluated the accuracy, comprehensiveness, potential risk of bias, timeliness, and feasibility of rapid review approaches. As rapid reviews are becoming more popular and useful for decision making [22], we aimed to solicit the experiences and perceptions regarding rapid reviews from a wide range of stakeholders, including researchers, policy makers, industry, journal editors, and health care providers.
Section snippets
Protocol
A protocol to conduct an electronic survey and Delphi was compiled and revised on feedback received from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research peer-review panel. It is available from the corresponding author on request.
Methods for the electronic survey
Organizations that produce rapid reviews were identified through the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment's (INAHTA) list of members (http://www.inahta.org/) and general Internet searches. A full list of the organizations that were invited to
Response rate
A total of 63 rapid review producers were contacted for our survey and 40 responded, giving a response rate of 63% and a 100% completion rate was achieved (i.e., 100% of the 40 participants completed the survey). For the online ranking exercise, 26 of 38 invited participants responded, giving a response rate of 68% and a completion rate of 100%. Finally, for the in-person ranking exercise, 90 of 150 participants responded, resulting in a 60% response rate and the completion rate was 62%.
Rapid review characteristics from the survey
The 88
Discussion
Our results suggest that the conduct of rapid reviews is recondite across rapid review producers. Through our study, 80 rapid review products and numerous streamlined methods were reported. Furthermore, many different terms were used to describe a rapid review, suggesting that standardization of terms is warranted. Indeed, Hartling et al. [21] have suggested a taxonomy of rapid review products, which will be useful for producers of rapid reviews. The primary reason for conducting a rapid review
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Donna Ciliska who provided support and expertise in rapid reviews and knowledge translation on our systematic review protocol. The authors also thank Ana Guzman for formatting the article and administering the survey and ranking exercise.
Authors' contributions: A.C.T. conceived the study, obtained funding for the study, drafted the survey and ranking exercises, pilot tested the survey and ranking exercises, led the in-person discussion, interpreted the data, and wrote the
To describe the various teaching and learning modalities for the delivery of Continuing Professional Development activities for health care professionals in the long-term care sector.
Continuing Professional Development is a key activity that organisations undertake to achieve effective workforce planning, recruitment, retention and upskilling strategies in long-term care settings. During the Covid-19 pandemic there was a rapid move to online modalities of Continuous Professional Development, but there is a paucity of evidence in relation to their effectiveness compared with face-to-face, or in-class learning.
A rapid synthesis review.
MEDLINE, CINAHL and HEALTH BUSINESS ELITE databases were used to identify relevant articles that were published between 2016 and 2022. Original studies of any design investigating Continuing Professional Development activities, with or without a comparison between interventions or activities were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed. The Kirkpatrick model was adopted as a globally recognised method for evaluating training programmes.
After a full text analysis, 34 papers were included in the review. Face to face was the most common method of delivery followed by online, while blended (a mix of face-to-face and online delivery) was the least common method used. The teaching modalities were not associated with specific learning contents, but were used for a range of content. Most studies obtained positive outcomes following implementation of the educational interventions. Kirkpatrick Level 4 (results) was the most commonly measured outcome.
While blended learning was the least common method of delivery, it was found to be more beneficial for learners than face-to-face or online exclusively. There are now new spaces to learn and new technologies that allow us to ‘reimagine’ where, when and how we teach. This requires Continuing Professional Development providers to design and tailor their courses according to health professionals’ learning needs and the clinical contexts where they work. We recommend that Continuing Professional Development providers involve employers when designing teaching and learning activities for Long Term Care workers, to decide which modalities enable effective knowledge translation.
Conflict of interest: A.C.T. and S.E.S. are on the editorial board for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. However, they were not involved with the editorial decisions related to this article. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Funding: The study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (grant number DRB-126641) Operating grant. A.C.T. and B.H. hold a CIHR/Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network New Investigator Award, D.M. holds a University of Ottawa Research Chair, and S.E.S. holds a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation.
