We can evaluate rapidly, but should we? Researchers' and research funders' perspectives on the uses, challenges and limitations of rapid health care evaluation.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Jo Ellins, Kelly Daniel, Manbinder Sidhu
{"title":"We can evaluate rapidly, but should we? Researchers' and research funders' perspectives on the uses, challenges and limitations of rapid health care evaluation.","authors":"Jo Ellins, Kelly Daniel, Manbinder Sidhu","doi":"10.1177/13558196251340549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesThere is increasing demand for rapid evaluation in health care to inform timely policy and practice decision-making. This qualitative study explored the perceived benefits, limitations and challenges of rapid evaluation, focusing on how considerations of timescale and research quality are balanced in study design and delivery in England.MethodsWe conducted fifteen semi-structured interviews with researchers and research funders involved in rapid evaluation, based in England. Data were thematically analysed using the Framework Method.ResultsResults are reported around five major themes: (i) rapid evaluations are purpose driven; (ii) 'good enough' evidence; (iii) trade-offs and limitations; (iv) mitigating the speed and rigour trade-off; and (v) deciding if and when to evaluate rapidly. Study participants agreed that rapid evaluation reflected a drive to better align evaluative processes and outcomes to the needs of service planners and policymakers. It was seen to generate quick data for short-term requirements, and information to justify the need for, and inform the design of, longer-term assessments. However, working rapidly could restrict or prohibit some research activities, and there were particular concerns about recruitment being limited to sites and participants that were easier to access in short timescales. Rapid evaluation was considered less suitable for 'high stakes' topics or decisions, where evidence robustness and generalisability was paramount. Several study participants had built an infrastructure to facilitate rapid working which, at least in part, reduced the need to make methodological compromises.ConclusionsRapid evaluation can support real-time learning for innovation and improvement and inform time-critical decisions, but timeliness is only one factor in the production of useful and usable evidence. It is a tool for specific circumstances and purposes, to be used alongside, rather than instead of, long-term and longitudinal designs.</p>","PeriodicalId":15953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"13558196251340549"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196251340549","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesThere is increasing demand for rapid evaluation in health care to inform timely policy and practice decision-making. This qualitative study explored the perceived benefits, limitations and challenges of rapid evaluation, focusing on how considerations of timescale and research quality are balanced in study design and delivery in England.MethodsWe conducted fifteen semi-structured interviews with researchers and research funders involved in rapid evaluation, based in England. Data were thematically analysed using the Framework Method.ResultsResults are reported around five major themes: (i) rapid evaluations are purpose driven; (ii) 'good enough' evidence; (iii) trade-offs and limitations; (iv) mitigating the speed and rigour trade-off; and (v) deciding if and when to evaluate rapidly. Study participants agreed that rapid evaluation reflected a drive to better align evaluative processes and outcomes to the needs of service planners and policymakers. It was seen to generate quick data for short-term requirements, and information to justify the need for, and inform the design of, longer-term assessments. However, working rapidly could restrict or prohibit some research activities, and there were particular concerns about recruitment being limited to sites and participants that were easier to access in short timescales. Rapid evaluation was considered less suitable for 'high stakes' topics or decisions, where evidence robustness and generalisability was paramount. Several study participants had built an infrastructure to facilitate rapid working which, at least in part, reduced the need to make methodological compromises.ConclusionsRapid evaluation can support real-time learning for innovation and improvement and inform time-critical decisions, but timeliness is only one factor in the production of useful and usable evidence. It is a tool for specific circumstances and purposes, to be used alongside, rather than instead of, long-term and longitudinal designs.

我们可以快速评估,但我们应该这样做吗?研究人员和研究资助者对快速卫生保健评估的使用、挑战和局限性的看法。
目的对卫生保健快速评估的需求日益增加,以便及时为政策和实践决策提供信息。本定性研究探讨了快速评估的好处、局限性和挑战,重点是如何在英国的研究设计和交付中平衡时间尺度和研究质量的考虑。方法我们对英国参与快速评估的研究人员和研究资助者进行了15次半结构化访谈。使用框架方法对数据进行主题分析。结果报告围绕五个主要主题:(i)快速评估是目的驱动的;(2)“足够好”的证据;(iii)权衡与限制;(iv)减轻速度和严格性之间的权衡;(v)决定是否以及何时快速评估。研究参与者一致认为,快速评估反映了更好地将评估过程和结果与服务规划者和决策者的需求结合起来的动力。人们认为它可以为短期需求提供快速数据,并为证明长期评估的必要性和为长期评估的设计提供信息。但是,快速工作可能限制或禁止一些研究活动,而且特别令人关切的是,征聘仅限于在短时间内更容易获得的地点和参与者。快速评估被认为不太适合“高风险”的主题或决策,在这些主题或决策中,证据的稳健性和普遍性至关重要。若干研究参与者建立了一个基础设施,以促进快速工作,这至少在一定程度上减少了在方法上作出妥协的需要。结论快速评估可以支持创新和改进的实时学习,并为时间关键型决策提供信息,但时效性只是产生有用和可用证据的一个因素。它是一种用于特定情况和目的的工具,与长期和纵向设计一起使用,而不是代替。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy provides a unique opportunity to explore the ideas, policies and decisions shaping health services throughout the world. Edited and peer-reviewed by experts in the field and with a high academic standard and multidisciplinary approach, readers will gain a greater understanding of the current issues in healthcare policy and research. The journal"s strong international editorial advisory board also ensures that readers obtain a truly global and insightful perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信