ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017
Policymaker experiences with rapid response briefs to address health-system and technology questions in Uganda.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Views on consent approaches used in emergency and critical care research: a rapid, systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2020Pooled it
- Knowledge user involvement is still uncommon in published rapid reviews-a meta-research cross-sectional study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Paper 3: Selecting rapid review methods for complex questions related to health policy and system issues.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Article
- Stakeholders' experiences with the evidence aid website to support 'real-time' use of research evidence to inform decision-making in crisis zones: a user testing study.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Evaluation of an HIV-specific rapid response service for community-based organisations in Ontario, Canada.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Making Smarter Decisions Faster: Systems Engineering to Improve the Global Public Health Response to HIV.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2019Review
- Facilitating evidence uptake: development and user testing of a systematic review summary format to inform public health decision-making in German-speaking countries.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth service and systems researchers have developed knowledge translation strategies to facilitate the use of reliable evidence for policy, including rapid response briefs as timely and responsive tools supporting decision making. However, little is known about users' experience with these newer formats for presenting evidence. We sought to explore Ugandan policymakers' experience with rapid response briefs in order to develop a format acceptable for policymakers.
methodsWe used existing research regarding evidence formats for policymakers to inform the initial version of rapid response brief format. We conducted user testing with healthcare policymakers at various levels of decision making in Uganda, employing a concurrent think-aloud method, collecting data on elements including usability, usefulness, understandability, desirability, credibility and value of the document. We modified the rapid response briefs format based on the results of the user testing and sought feedback on the new format.
resultsThe participants generally found the format of the rapid response briefs usable, credible, desirable and of value. Participants expressed frustrations regarding several aspects of the document, including the absence of recommendations, lack of clarity about the type of document and its potential uses (especially for first time users), and a crowded front page. Participants offered conflicting feedback on preferred length of the briefs and use and placement of partner logos. Users had divided preferences for the older and newer formats.
conclusionAlthough the rapid response briefs were generally found to be of value, there are major and minor frustrations impeding an optimal user experience. Areas requiring further research include how to address policymakers' expectations of recommendations in these briefs and their optimal length.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.