Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark, Norha Vera San Juan, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros
{"title":"快速评价与评价方法（STREAM）标准的制定：e-Delphi共识研究","authors":"Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark, Norha Vera San Juan, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros","doi":"10.1111/jep.70207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Timeliness is key to influencing the utility of evaluation and research findings and has given rise to a range of rapid evaluation and appraisal approaches. However, issues in the design, implementation and transparency in their reporting has led to concerns around their rigour and validity. To address this, we have developed the Standards for Rapid Evaluation and Appraisal Methods (STREAM).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We followed a four-stage consensus process, starting with a (1) steering group consultation; (2) three-stage e-Delphi study; (3) stakeholder consensus workshop; and (4) piloting exercise. The stakeholders invited to participate in the consensus process had experience in conducting, being part of, or commissioning rapid evaluations or appraisals.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-eight standards were developed with the purpose of guiding the design and implementation of rapid evaluations and appraisals and supporting the reporting of methods used.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Rapid evaluations and appraisals can be useful in time and resource limited contexts and in the response to new or changing services, but close attention needs to be paid to their rigour and other factors that might influence the production of knowledge and validity of the findings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70207","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing Standards for Rapid Evaluation and Appraisal Methods (STREAM): An e-Delphi Consensus Study\",\"authors\":\"Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark, Norha Vera San Juan, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Timeliness is key to influencing the utility of evaluation and research findings and has given rise to a range of rapid evaluation and appraisal approaches. However, issues in the design, implementation and transparency in their reporting has led to concerns around their rigour and validity. To address this, we have developed the Standards for Rapid Evaluation and Appraisal Methods (STREAM).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We followed a four-stage consensus process, starting with a (1) steering group consultation; (2) three-stage e-Delphi study; (3) stakeholder consensus workshop; and (4) piloting exercise. The stakeholders invited to participate in the consensus process had experience in conducting, being part of, or commissioning rapid evaluations or appraisals.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Thirty-eight standards were developed with the purpose of guiding the design and implementation of rapid evaluations and appraisals and supporting the reporting of methods used.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Rapid evaluations and appraisals can be useful in time and resource limited contexts and in the response to new or changing services, but close attention needs to be paid to their rigour and other factors that might influence the production of knowledge and validity of the findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70207\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70207\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70207","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Developing Standards for Rapid Evaluation and Appraisal Methods (STREAM): An e-Delphi Consensus Study
Background
Timeliness is key to influencing the utility of evaluation and research findings and has given rise to a range of rapid evaluation and appraisal approaches. However, issues in the design, implementation and transparency in their reporting has led to concerns around their rigour and validity. To address this, we have developed the Standards for Rapid Evaluation and Appraisal Methods (STREAM).
Methods
We followed a four-stage consensus process, starting with a (1) steering group consultation; (2) three-stage e-Delphi study; (3) stakeholder consensus workshop; and (4) piloting exercise. The stakeholders invited to participate in the consensus process had experience in conducting, being part of, or commissioning rapid evaluations or appraisals.
Results
Thirty-eight standards were developed with the purpose of guiding the design and implementation of rapid evaluations and appraisals and supporting the reporting of methods used.
Conclusions
Rapid evaluations and appraisals can be useful in time and resource limited contexts and in the response to new or changing services, but close attention needs to be paid to their rigour and other factors that might influence the production of knowledge and validity of the findings.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
