In this study a number of Key Informants (KIs) were interviewed. In fact it was only eight – which already has me slightly concerned (and was recognised as a possible weakness in the article: “However, our small sample size means that results may not be representative of all end-users and we cannot be sure that the themes reached saturation.“)! They represented the following organisations:
Guideline developers (n=3), health care provider organizations (n=3), research funders (n=1), and payers/health insurers (n=1) .
The study had three aims:
- Determine what makes end-users trust and value an evidence synthesis.
- Determine end-user impressions of different rapid products with a focus on acceptability and usability (not necessarily validity).
- Determine where/when/how end-users might use rapid review products
The results of the interviews are as follows:
“KIs reported a variety of potential uses for rapid products. In general, KIs perceived rapid products (particularly evidence inventories and rapid responses) as useful interim products to inform downstream investigation (e.g., whether to proceed with a full review or a guideline, direction for future research). Most KIs indicated that analysis/synthesis and quality/strength of evidence was important for decision making. Most KIs could see a use for a rapid review, in particular for guideline development focused on narrow topics, policy decisions when a quick turn-around is needed, decision making for practicing clinicians in nuanced clinical settings, and coverage decisions. Rapid responses and rapid reviews may be more relevant within specific clinical settings or health systems. Conversely, broad/national guidelines often need a traditional systematic review.”
As with all these article reviews, I’ve just picked out my highlights. It’s not intended as a summary perhaps more of a taste of what’s included. But it does have lots of interesting ideas/perspectives in there, issues such as trust, relationships with the review producers etc.