Expediting evidence synthesis for healthcare decision-making: exploring attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews using Q methodology

Background Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use evidence-informed policy and practice approaches. A range of opinions and viewpoints on rapid reviews is thought to exist; however, no research to date has formally captured these views. This paper aims to explore evidence producer and knowledge user attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews. Methods A Q methodology study was conducted to identify central viewpoints about rapid reviews based on a broad topic discourse. Participants rank-ordered 50 text statements and explained their Q-sort in free-text comments. Individual Q-sorts were analysed using Q-Assessor (statistical method: factor analysis with varimax rotation). Factors, or salient viewpoints on rapid reviews, were identified, interpreted and described. Results Analysis of the 11 individual Q sorts identified three prominent viewpoints: Factor A cautions against the use of study design labels to make judgements. Factor B maintains that rapid reviews should be the exception and not the rule. Factor C focuses on the practical needs of the end-user over the review process. Conclusion Results show that there are opposing viewpoints on rapid reviews, yet some unity exists. The three factors described offer insight into how and why various stakeholders act as they do and what issues may need to be resolved before increase uptake of the evidence from rapid reviews can be realized in healthcare decision-making environments.

[1]  R. Hunt,et al.  Systematic Reviews: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly , 2009, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[2]  D. Moher,et al.  A scoping review of rapid review methods , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[3]  M. Dehghan,et al.  Parents' perceptions and attitudes on childhood obesity: A Q‐methodology study , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners.

[4]  Lisa Hartling,et al.  Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[5]  Paul Stenner,et al.  Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation , 2012 .

[6]  David Hailey,et al.  A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[7]  P Corabian,et al.  THE USE AND IMPACT OF RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[8]  Holger J Schünemann,et al.  Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[9]  Andrew D Oxman,et al.  Transparent Development of the WHO Rapid Advice Guidelines , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[10]  David Hailey,et al.  RAPID VERSUS FULL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: VALIDITY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE? , 2008, ANZ journal of surgery.

[11]  Julie Polisena,et al.  RAPID REVIEW: AN EMERGING APPROACH TO EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT , 2014, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

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

[13]  David Hailey,et al.  Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[14]  Lisa Hartling,et al.  EPC Methods: An Exploration of Methods and Context for the Production of Rapid Reviews , 2015 .

[15]  Andrijana Rajić,et al.  Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri‐food public health , 2016, Research synthesis methods.

[16]  D. Gough,et al.  Clarifying differences between review designs and methods , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

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

[18]  Julie Polisena,et al.  Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[19]  Jos Kleijnen,et al.  What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. , 2012, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[20]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. , 1972 .

[21]  Paul Kline,et al.  An easy guide to factor analysis , 1993 .

[22]  Tracy Merlin,et al.  WHAT’S IN A NAME? DEVELOPING DEFINITIONS FOR COMMON HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PRODUCT TYPES OF THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF AGENCIES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (INAHTA) , 2014, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[23]  Paul Stenner,et al.  Social Psychology: A Critical Agenda , 1995 .

[24]  Job van Exel,et al.  Q methodology: A sneak preview , 2005 .

[25]  Xianggui Qu,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis , 2007, Technometrics.

[26]  M. Helfand,et al.  User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[27]  Beryl C. Curt Textuality and Tectonics: Troubling Social and Psychological Science , 1994 .

[28]  D. Moher,et al.  Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[29]  David Moher,et al.  Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research , 2014, The Lancet.

[30]  R. Cross Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology. , 2004, Health education research.

[31]  D. Moher,et al.  Does journal endorsement of reporting guidelines influence the completeness of reporting of health research? A systematic review protocol , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[32]  Steven R. Brown A Primer on Q Methodology , 1993, Operant Subjectivity.

[33]  Donna Ciliska,et al.  Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[34]  Steven R. Brown Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. , 1980 .