The Healthcare Improvement Scotland evidence note rapid review process

McIntosh, Heather; Calvert, Julie; Macpherson, Karen; Thompson, Lorna

doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000078

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The briefing document was informed by a rapid literature review which followed recommended methods for searching, screening, data extraction and synthesis. [18][19][20][21] In the first round, participants were asked to rate the appropriateness of delivering various COPD-related care activities remotely, again based on NICE standards, 12 using a 9-point scale, from 1 (not at all appropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Care activities related to both planned and unplanned specialty care (table 1).…”

Section: Consensus-building Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specialty COPD care during COVID-19: patient and clinician perspectives on remote delivery

Burt

Chowdhury

et al. 2021

BMJ Open Resp Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has impacted specialty chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care. We examined the degree to which care has moved to remote approaches, eliciting clinician and patient perspectives on what is appropriate for ongoing remote delivery.MethodsUsing an online research platform, we conducted a survey and consensus-building process involving clinicians and patients with COPD.ResultsFifty-five clinicians and 19 patients responded. The majority of clinicians felt able to assess symptom severity (n=52, 95%), reinforce smoking cessation (n=46, 84%) and signpost to other healthcare resources (n=44, 80%). Patients reported that assessing COPD severity and starting new medications were being addressed through remote care. Forty-three and 31 respondents participated in the first and second consensus-building rounds, respectively. When asked to rate the appropriateness of using remote delivery for specific care activities, respondents reached consensus on 5 of 14 items: collecting information about COPD and overall health status (77%), providing COPD education and developing a self-management plan (74%), reinforcing smoking cessation (81%), deciding whether patients should seek in-person care (72%) and initiating a rescue pack (76%).ConclusionAdoption of remote care delivery appears high, with many care activities partially or completely delivered remotely. Our work identifies strengths and limitations of remote care delivery.

show abstract

Section: Consensus-building Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specialty COPD care during COVID-19: patient and clinician perspectives on remote delivery

Burt

Chowdhury

et al. 2021

BMJ Open Resp Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The eight descriptive documents [ 33 , 49 – 54 ] described engagement approaches used for the following: Healthcare Improvement Scotland [ 53 ], Greater London Authority (UK) [ 55 ], Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) [ 49 ], Samueli Institute (US) [ 51 ], Institute for Work and Health (Canada), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Canada) [ 52 ], and various funding and governmental agencies within Canada [ 33 , 50 , 54 ]. Most of the approaches involved consultations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIt is unclear how to engage a wide range of knowledge users in research. We aimed to map the evidence on engaging knowledge users with an emphasis on policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process through a scoping review.MethodsWe used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Nine electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE), two grey literature sources (e.g., OpenSIGLE), and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched from 1996 to August 2016. We included any type of study describing strategies, barriers and facilitators, or assessing the impact of engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Frequency and thematic analyses were conducted.ResultsAfter screening 8395 titles and abstracts followed by 394 full-texts, 84 unique documents and 7 companion reports fulfilled our eligibility criteria. All 84 documents were published in the last 10 years, and half were prepared in North America. The most common type of knowledge synthesis with knowledge user engagement was a systematic review (36%). The knowledge synthesis most commonly addressed an issue at the level of national healthcare system (48%) and focused on health services delivery (17%) in high-income countries (86%).Policy-makers were the most common (64%) knowledge users, followed by healthcare professionals (49%) and government agencies as well as patients and caregivers (34%). Knowledge users were engaged in conceptualization and design (49%), literature search and data collection (52%), data synthesis and interpretation (71%), and knowledge dissemination and application (44%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged as key informants through meetings and workshops as well as surveys, focus groups, and interviews either in-person or by telephone and emails. Knowledge user content expertise/awareness was a common facilitator (18%), while lack of time or opportunity to participate was a common barrier (12%).ConclusionsKnowledge users were most commonly engaged during the data synthesis and interpretation phases of the knowledge synthesis conduct. Researchers should document and evaluate knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis.Registration detailsOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/4dy53/).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Rapid evidence synthesis has become extensively adopted by HTA agencies in response to the real-world appeal of evidence-based data to support decisions [ 9 ]. If systematic reviews or HTA reports are long-delayed and pricey [ 10 ], there will be no standard methods of rapid response [ 1 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Health technology assessment agencies are adopting rapid reviews to support decision in a timely manner [ 7 ]. Experiences from Canada [ 8 ] and Scotland [ 9 ] reveal that transparency and intensive user feedback increase the responsiveness. They also report a broad range of topics: since health service utilization to drugs prescription.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid response in health technology assessment: a Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline

Silva

Barreto

2018

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRapid response in health technology assessment is a synthesis of the best available evidence prepared in a timely manner to meet specific demands. We build a consensus among Brazilian specialists in health technology assessment to propose guidelines for the development of rapid response.MethodsBased on a systematic review that proposed eight methodological steps to conduct rapid response, we applied a modified Delphi technique (without open questions in the first round) to reach consensus among Brazilian experts in health technology assessment. Twenty participants were invited to judge the feasibility of each methodological step in a five-point Likert scale. Consensus was reached if the step had 70% positive approval or interquartile range ≤ 1.ResultsThe achievement of consensus was reached in the second round. Between the first and the second round, we scrutinized all points reported by the experts. The Delphi panel reached consensus of eight steps: definition of the structured question of rapid response (with a restricted scope); definition of the eligibility criteria for study types (preferably systematic reviews); search strategy (language and data limits) and sources of information (minimum two); selection of studies (independently by two responders); critical appraisal of the included studies and the risk of bias for the outcomes of interest; data extraction from the included articles; summary of evidence; and preparation of the report.ConclusionsThe guidelines for rapid response in health technology assessment may help governments to make better decisions in a short period of time (35 days). The adoption of methodological processes should improve both the quality and consistency of health technology assessments of rapid decisions in the Brazilian setting.

show abstract

The Healthcare Improvement Scotland evidence note rapid review process

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Specialty COPD care during COVID-19: patient and clinician perspectives on remote delivery

Specialty COPD care during COVID-19: patient and clinician perspectives on remote delivery

Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review

Rapid response in health technology assessment: a Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About