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

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.

[1]  M. Trivella,et al.  Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment , 2023, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

[2]  A. Booth,et al.  Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search , 2023, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

[3]  A. Tricco,et al.  Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership , 2022, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  V. Welch,et al.  Methodological guidance for incorporating equity when informing rapid-policy and guideline development , 2022, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  A. Tricco,et al.  Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group , 2022, JBI evidence synthesis.

[6]  D. Mohr,et al.  Evaluating the Impacts of Patient Engagement on Health Services Research Teams: Lessons from the Veteran Consulting Network , 2022, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[7]  J. Hoving,et al.  Stakeholder Involvement in Systematic Reviews: Lessons From Cochrane's Public Health and Health Systems Network. , 2021, American journal of public health.

[8]  C. Garritty,et al.  Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews , 2020, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

[9]  C. Garritty,et al.  Defining Rapid Reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. , 2020, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  D. Moher,et al.  Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study , 2020, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[11]  A. Fretheim,et al.  Rapid reviews for rapid decision-making during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, Norway, 2020 , 2020, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[12]  A. Majnemer,et al.  Using a rapid review process to engage stakeholders, inform policy and set priorities for promoting physical activity and leisure participation for children with disabilities in British Columbia , 2020 .

[13]  Jennifer E. Moore,et al.  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality , 2020, Definitions.

[14]  Abdullah Pandor,et al.  Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR). , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  A. Tricco,et al.  Engaging knowledge users in a systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led models of care is possible: A cross-sectional survey using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[16]  M. Puhan,et al.  Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research , 2019, BMJ Open.

[17]  Sophie Hill,et al.  Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews , 2019, Journal of health services research & policy.

[18]  L. Forsythe,et al.  Patient Engagement In Research: Early Findings From The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. , 2019, Health affairs.

[19]  A. Tricco,et al.  Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage , 2019, BMJ Global Health.

[20]  Clayon B Hamilton,et al.  Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective , 2018, PloS one.

[21]  A. Bishop,et al.  Moving patient-oriented research forward: thoughts from the next generation of knowledge translation researchers , 2018, Research Involvement and Engagement.

[22]  Michele. Kok,et al.  Guidance document: Evaluating public involvement in research , 2018 .

[23]  S. Redman,et al.  Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful? , 2018, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[24]  A. Tricco,et al.  Engaging policy-makers, heath system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review , 2018, Implementation Science.

[25]  Meera Viswanathan,et al.  The Use of Rapid Review Methods for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. , 2018, American journal of preventive medicine.

[26]  Ruth Stewart,et al.  How stakeholder engagement has led us to reconsider definitions of rigour in systematic reviews , 2017, Environmental Evidence.

[27]  D G Altman,et al.  GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[28]  Lisa Hartling,et al.  Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[29]  S. Golder,et al.  A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane , 2016, Research Involvement and Engagement.

[30]  David Moher,et al.  An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  Robin Paynter,et al.  A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[32]  Zachary Munn,et al.  The Development and Use of Evidence Summaries for Point of Care Information Systems: A Streamlined Rapid Review Approach. , 2015, Worldviews on evidence-based nursing.

[33]  L. Leslie,et al.  A Systematic Review of Stakeholder Engagement in Comparative Effectiveness and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research , 2014, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[34]  Robin A. Paynter,et al.  Defining the Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement in Systematic Reviews , 2014 .

[35]  J. Hibbard,et al.  What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. , 2013, Health affairs.

[36]  Scott D Ramsey,et al.  Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. , 2012, Journal of comparative effectiveness research.

[37]  David Moher,et al.  Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[38]  Dwayne Van Eerd,et al.  Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. , 2008, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[39]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Consumer‐driven health care: Building partnerships in research , 2005, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[40]  E. Corin Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Instituts Canadiens de Recherche en Santé (ICRS) SSHRC Strategic Themes/Themes strategiques du CRSHC The Canadian Health Services Research Foundation La Fondation Canadienne de la Recherche sur les Services de Santé MODERNITY, SUFFERING AND PSYCHOPATHO , 1999 .