Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study

Garritty, Chantelle; Hersi, Mona; Hamel, Candyce; Stevens, Adrienne; Monfaredi, Zarah; Butler, Claire; Tricco, Andrea C.; Hartling, Lisa; Stewart, Lesley; Welch, Vivian; Thavorn, Kednapa; Cheng, Wei; Moher, David

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238025

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As identified from a parallel methods project [33], following the screening of 1990 JP records and 227 fulltext reports produced by various RR-producing organisations, a total of 103 RRs were included (Fig. 1).…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We based our analysis on a sample of 103 RRs that included both journal-published (JP) and non-journalpublished (NJP) RRs, which were identified from a parallel methods project [33]. Briefly, the JP RRs were identified by searching Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid EMBASE, Ebsco CINAHL, Proquest Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library using search strategies that were developed in conjunction with and peer reviewed by experienced information specialists.…”

Section: Identifying Rrs For Inclusion (Dataset)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, only studies in English and French were considered for inclusion. Further details on the search strategies developed to identify the sample, eligibility criteria and the sampling frame are provided elsewhere [33]. Table 1 represents the original BRIDGE criteria, including the major categories covered [30], that were modified for a previously reported study [31].…”

Section: Identifying Rrs For Inclusion (Dataset)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study

Garritty

Hamel

Hersi

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 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 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 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 The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7

show abstract

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identifying Rrs For Inclusion (Dataset)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identifying Rrs For Inclusion (Dataset)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study

Garritty

Hamel

Hersi

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, learners are more accustomed to simplified language systems (Atkinson et al, 2018). Thus, concise and clear language offers more advantages in interpersonal communication (Garritty et al, 2020). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:…”

Section: Short Video Marketingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Short video marketing: what, when and how short-branded videos facilitate consumer engagement

Dong

Liu

et al. 2023

INTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study explores whether and how four main factors of short-branded video content (content matching, information relevance, storytelling and emotionality) facilitate consumer engagement (likes, comments and shares), as well as the moderating effect of the release time (morning, afternoon and evening) in such relationships.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses Python to write programs to crawl relevant data information, such as consumer engagement and short video release time. It combines coding methods to empirically analyze the impact of short-branded video content characteristics on consumer engagement. A total of 10,240 Weibo short videos (total duration: 238.645 h) from 122 well-known brands are utilized as research objects.FindingsEmpirical results show that the content characteristics of short videos significantly affected consumer engagement. Furthermore, the release time of videos significantly moderated the relationship between the emotionality of short videos and consumer engagement. Content released in the morning enhanced the positive impact of warmth, excitement and joy on consumer engagement, compared to that released in the afternoon.Practical implicationsThe findings provide new insights for the dissemination of products and brand culture through short videos. The authors suggest that enterprises that use brand videos consider content matching, information relevance, storytelling and emotionality in their design.Originality/valueFrom a broader perspective, this study constructs a new method for comprehensively evaluating short-branded video content, based on four dimensions (content matching, information relevance, storytelling and emotionality) and explores the value of these dimensions for creating social media marketing success, such as via consumer engagement.

show abstract

Rapid systematic reviews for synthesizing research on built environment

Lagisz

Vasilakopoulou

Bridge

et al. 2022

Environmental Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study

Cited by 4 publications

References 31 publications

Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study

Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study

Short video marketing: what, when and how short-branded videos facilitate consumer engagement

Rapid systematic reviews for synthesizing research on built environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About