Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27491354›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making.

Kim Peterson, Nicole Floyd, Lauren Ferguson, Vivian Christensen, Mark Helfand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Why Do People Choose Emergency and Urgent Care Services? A Rapid Review Utilizing a Systematic Literature Search and Narrative Synthesis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kim PetersonVA Portland Health Care System, Veterans Affairs Evidence-Based Synthesis Program, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. Kimberly.Peterson4@va.gov.
Nicole FloydVA Portland Health Care System, Veterans Affairs Evidence-Based Synthesis Program, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Lauren FergusonVA Portland Health Care System, Veterans Affairs Evidence-Based Synthesis Program, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Vivian ChristensenVA Portland Health Care System, Veterans Affairs Evidence-Based Synthesis Program, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Mark HelfandVA Portland Health Care System, Veterans Affairs Evidence-Based Synthesis Program, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.

Funding

HSRD VA ESP 09-199
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo provide evidence synthesis for faster-paced healthcare decision-making, rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined alternative to standard systematic reviews. In 2012, the Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Program (VA ESP) added rapid reviews to support Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operational partners' more urgent decision-making needs. VHA operational partners play a substantial role in dissemination of ESP rapid reviews through a variety of routes, including posting on the VA ESP's public website ( http://www.hsrd. RESEARCH: va.gov/publications/esp/ ). As demand for rapid reviews rises, much progress has been made in characterizing methods and practices. However, evidence synthesis organizations still seek to better understand how and when rapid reviews are being used.

methodsThe VA ESP administered an online survey to rapid review operational partners. The survey assessed the nature of decision-making needs, overall perception of review content, resulting actions, and implementation timeframe. We use descriptive statistics and narrative methods to summarize findings.

resultsBetween October 2011 and April 2015, we completed 12 rapid reviews for 35 operational partners. Operational partners were primarily non-academic subject matter experts with VA operations' decision-making authority. The most common topic categories reviewed were policy or system (50 %) or process of care (42 %) initiatives. Median report completion time was 14.5 weeks. Survey response rate was 46 %, with at least one operational partner responding for 92 % of reports. Reviews served multiple purposes including policy directive or regulation (72 %), supporting program development and evaluation (55 %), identifying future research needs (45 %), and determining implementation strategy (45 %). Overall, operational partners' perception of report content was positive. A majority of rapid reviews were used immediately and informed actions ranking high on the Institute of Medicine's Degrees of Impact framework: 45.4 % effected change, 18.2 % inspired action, 18.2 % informed the field, 9.1 % received recognition, and 9.1 % spread a message.

conclusionsVA ESP rapid reviews have increased the VHA's uptake of evidence to inform time-sensitive system-level decision-making. Key areas of interest for future evaluation include assessing user perception of our streamlined methods and the quality of our efforts to inform users of these methods, as well as comparing the usability and impact of our rapid and standard systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineReview Literature as TopicUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsHumansPolicyProgram DevelopmentSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesDecision-makingEvidence synthesisImplementationProgram impactRapid review

Identifiers

PMID27491354
PMCPMC4974754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.