A bespoke rapid evidence review process engaging stakeholders for supporting evolving and time-sensitive policy and clinical decision-making: reflection and lessons learned from the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre 2021-2023.

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presented policymakers with time-sensitive decision problems and a rapidly increasing volume of research, not all of which was robust, or relevant to local contexts. A bespoke evidence review process supporting stakeholder engagement was developed as part of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC), which could flexibly react to the needs of decision-makers, to address urgent requests within days or months as required.

Aims: To describe and appraise the WCEC review process and methods and identify key learning points.

Methods: Three types of rapid review products were used, which could accommodate the breadth of decision problems and topics covered. Stakeholder (including public) engagement was integrated from the onset and supported throughout. The methods used were tailored depending on the needs of the decision-maker, type of research question, timeframe, and volume and type of evidence. We appraised the overall process and compared the methods used with the most recent and relevant best practice guidance.

Results: The remote collaboration between research teams, establishing a clear pathway to impact upfront, and the strong stakeholder involvement embedded in the review process were considered particular strengths. Several key learning points were identified, which focused on: enhancing stakeholders' abilities to identify focused policy-relevant research questions; the collection and storage of review protocols at a central location; tightening quality assurance process regarding study selection, data extraction and quality assessment; adequate reporting of methodological shortcuts and understanding by stakeholders; piloting of an algorithm for assigning study design descriptors, and a single quality assessment tool covering multiple study designs; and incorporate, where appropriate an assessment of the confidence in the overall body of evidence using GRADE or similar framework.

Conclusions: The review process enabled a high volume of questions that were directly relevant to policy and clinical decision making to be addressed in a timely manner using a transparent and tailored approach.