↓ Skip to main content

Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Polisena, Chantelle Garritty, Chris Kamel, Adrienne Stevens, Ahmed M Abou-Setta

Abstract

Health care decision makers often need to make decisions in limited timeframes and cannot await the completion of a full evidence review. Rapid reviews (RRs), utilizing streamlined systematic review methods, are increasingly being used to synthesize the evidence with a shorter turnaround time. Our primary objective was to describe the processes and methods used internationally to produce RRs. In addition, we sought to understand the underlying themes associated with these programs. We contacted representatives of international RR programs from a broad realm in health care to gather information about the methods and processes used to produce RRs. The responses were summarized narratively to understand the characteristics associated with their processes and methods. The summaries were compared and contrasted to highlight potential themes and trends related to the different RR programs. Twenty-nine international RR programs were included in our sample with a broad organizational representation from academia, government, research institutions, and non-for-profit organizations. Responses revealed that the main objectives for RRs were to inform decision making with regards to funding health care technologies, services and policy, and program development. Central themes that influenced the methods used by RR programs, and report type and dissemination were the imposed turnaround time to complete a report, resources available, the complexity and sensitivity of the research topics, and permission from the requestor. Our study confirmed that there is no standard approach to conduct RRs. Differences in processes and methods across programs may be the result of the novelty of RR methods versus other types of evidence syntheses, customization of RRs for various decision makers, and definition of 'rapid' by organizations, since it impacts both the timelines and the evidence synthesis methods. Future research should investigate the impact of current RR methods and reporting to support informed health care decision making, the effects of potential biases that may be introduced with streamlined methods, and the effectiveness of RR reporting guidelines on transparency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 140 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Other 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 40 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 3%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 52 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2020.
All research outputs
#4,601,244
of 25,517,918 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#879
of 2,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,695
of 277,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,517,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.