Rapid assessment of mental health of Detroit-area health care workers during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 COVID-19 Pandemic

Daviskiba, Sydney; MacKenzie, Megan; Dow, Miriam; Johnston, Peyton; Balon, Richard; Javanbakht, Arash; Arfken, Cynthia L.

doi:10.12788/acp.0023

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…165-167 195 196 Increased use of online recruitment and data collection was identified following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. [145][146][147][148][149][150] Developments in RCT design were also seen over this period. 173 174 176-179 At later stages of the evaluation process we identified continuous or contemporaneous data collection or data analyses as a means to increase rapidity of evaluation in RCTs and other quantitative study designs.…”

Section: Adaptation Of Part Of a Standard Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Approaches to enabling rapid evaluation of innovations in health and social care: a scoping review of evidence from high-income countries

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for rapid evaluation of innovation in health and social care. Assessment of rapid methodologies is lacking although challenges in ensuring rigour and effective use of resources are known. We mapped reports of rapid evaluations of health and social care innovations, categorised different approaches to rapid evaluation, explored comparative benefits of rapid evaluation, and identified knowledge gaps.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases were searched through 13 September 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included publications reporting primary research or methods for rapid evaluation of interventions or services in health and social care in high-income countries.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers developed and piloted a data extraction form. One reviewer extracted data, a second reviewer checked 10% of the studies; disagreements and uncertainty were resolved through consensus. We used narrative synthesis to map different approaches to conducting rapid evaluation.ResultsWe identified 16 759 records and included 162 which met inclusion criteria.We identified four main approaches for rapid evaluation: (1) Using methodology designed specifically for rapid evaluation; (2) Increasing rapidity by doing less or using less time-intensive methodology; (3) Using alternative technologies and/or data to increase speed of existing evaluation method; (4) Adapting part of non-rapid evaluation.The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in publications and some limited changes in identified methods. We found little research comparing rapid and non-rapid evaluation.ConclusionsWe found a lack of clarity about what ‘rapid evaluation’ means but identified some useful preliminary categories. There is a need for clarity and consistency about what constitutes rapid evaluation; consistent terminology in reporting evaluations as rapid; development of specific methodologies for making evaluation more rapid; and assessment of advantages and disadvantages of rapid methodology in terms of rigour, cost and impact.

show abstract

Section: Adaptation Of Part Of a Standard Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Joseph and Goddard, Demeulemeester et al, Banga et al 140-142 Using an online survey Survey hosted on webpage and/or social media sites. Attal et al, Daviskiba et al, Elsawy et al, Hammond et al; Khubchandani et al, Talati et al, Petrella et al[145][146][147][148][149][150]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%