Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users.

IF 9 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Chantelle Garritty, Andrea C Tricco, Maureen Smith, Danielle Pollock, Chris Kamel, Valerie J King
{"title":"Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users.","authors":"Chantelle Garritty, Andrea C Tricco, Maureen Smith, Danielle Pollock, Chris Kamel, Valerie J King","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"55-61"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10850627/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112070","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

快速审查方法系列:让患者和公众合作伙伴、医疗服务提供者和决策者成为知识使用者。
快速审查(RR)是一种有用的证据综合工具,可为医疗保健领域的紧急决策提供支持。快速综述是对系统综述方法的缩减,在较短的时间内完成,以满足委托机构或团体的决策需求。知识使用者(KUs)是指那些有可能使用包括 RRs 在内的研究证据来对医疗政策、计划或实践做出明智决策的个人,通常是患者和公众合作伙伴、医疗服务提供者和政策制定者。然而,研究表明,知识库对 RR 的参与往往有限或被忽视,很少有 RR 将患者作为知识库。现有的 RR 方法指南提倡让知识库参与,但缺乏关于如何以及何时参与的详细步骤。本文讨论了让知识库参与 RR 的重要性,包括患者和公众的参与,以确保 RR 符合目的并与决策相关。本文概述了让知识库参与 RRs 的规划、实施和知识转化的机会。此外,本文还介绍了在审查生命周期中让知识库参与的各种模式;研究人员在让不同知识库群体参与时应注意的关键因素;以及一个示范案例研究,展示了患者伙伴和公众在制定研究报告时的实质性参与。虽然让知识库参与进来需要时间、资源和专业知识,但研究人员应努力在 "快速 "和知识库有意义地参与 RRs 之间取得平衡。本文是 Cochrane 快速综述方法小组领导的系列文章中的第一篇,旨在进一步指导一般 RR 方法。
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
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (BMJ EBM) publishes original evidence-based research, insights and opinions on what matters for health care. We focus on the tools, methods, and concepts that are basic and central to practising evidence-based medicine and deliver relevant, trustworthy and impactful evidence. BMJ EBM is a Plan S compliant Transformative Journal and adheres to the highest possible industry standards for editorial policies and publication ethics.
×
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