Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29482643›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful?

Gabriel Moore, Sally Redman, Sian Rudge, Abby Haynes

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Promoting sustained access to cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in Australia: a system-level implementation program.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gabriel MooreThe Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street Ultimo NSW 2007, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia. gabriel.moore@saxinstitute.org.au.
Sally RedmanThe Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street Ultimo NSW 2007, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia.
Sian RudgeThe Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street Ultimo NSW 2007, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia.
Abby HaynesThe Sax Institute, Level 13, Building 10, 235 Jones Street Ultimo NSW 2007, PO Box K617, Haymarket, NSW, 1240, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUSax Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid reviews are increasingly used by policy agencies to access relevant research in short timeframes. Despite the growing number of programmes, little is known about how rapid reviews are used by health policy agencies. This study examined whether and how rapid reviews commissioned using a knowledge brokering programme were used by Australian policy-makers.

methodsThis study used interview data to examine the use of 139 rapid reviews by health policy agencies that were commissioned between 2006 and 2015. Transcripts were coded to identify how rapid reviews were used, the type of policy processes in which they were used, what evidence of use was provided and what reasons were given when rapid reviews were not used. Fisher's exact test was used to assess variation between types of agencies.

resultsOverall, 89% of commissioned rapid reviews were used by the commissioning agencies and 338 separate instances of use were identified, namely, on average, three uses per review. Policy-makers used reviews primarily to determine the details of a policy or programme, identify priorities for future action or investment, negotiate interjurisdictional decisions, evaluate alternative solutions for a policy problem, and communicate information to stakeholders. Some variation in use was observed across agencies. Reasons for non-use were related to changes in organisational structures, resources or key personnel in the commissioning agencies, or changes in the broader political environment.

conclusionsThis study found that almost all rapid reviews had been used by the agencies who commissioned them, primarily in policy and programme development, agenda-setting, and to communicate information to stakeholders. Reviews were used mostly in instrumental and conceptual ways and there was little evidence of symbolic use. Variations in use were identified across agencies. The findings suggest that commissioned rapid reviews are an effective means of providing timely relevant research for use in policy processes and that review findings may be applied in a variety of ways.

Indexed as

Administrative PersonnelEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PolicyInformation Seeking BehaviorPolicy MakingResearchReview Literature as TopicAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaCommunicationDecision MakingHealth PlanningHumansKnowledgeProgram DevelopmentSurveys and QuestionnairesHealth policyKnowledge translationPolicy-makersRapid reviewRapid synthesisResearch utilisation

Identifiers

PMID29482643
PMCPMC5828139
OpenAlexW2796169261

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.