Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35772940›Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2023

Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

Barbara Clyne, Lisa Hynes, Colette Kirwan, Máire McGeehan, Paula Byrne, Martha Killilea, Susan M Smith, Máirín Ryan, Claire Collins, Michelle O'Neill and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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

13 authors.

Barbara Clyne *Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland barbaraclyne@RCSI.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1186-9495
Lisa Hynes *Discipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Colette KirwanDiscipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Máire McGeehanDiscipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Paula ByrneHealth Technology Assessment, Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland.
Martha KillileaPPI Ignite Network @ NUI Galway, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Susan M SmithDepartment of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Máirín RyanHealth Technology Assessment, Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland.
Claire CollinsIrish College of General Practitioners, Dublin, Ireland.
Michelle O'NeillHealth Technology Assessment, Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland.
Emma WallaceDepartment of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland.
Andrew W MurphyDiscipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Maureen E KellyDiscipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe perceptions of providing, and using rapid evidence, to support decision making by two national bodies (one public health policy and one front-line clinical practice) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

designDescriptive qualitative study (March-August 2020): 25 semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

settingData were obtained as part of an evaluation of two Irish national projects; the Irish COVID-19 Evidence for General Practitioners project (General Practice (GP) project) which provided relevant evidence to address clinical questions posed by GPs; and the COVID-19 Evidence Synthesis Team (Health Policy project) which produced rapid evidence products at the request of the National Public Health Emergency Team.

participantsPurposive sample of 14 evidence providers (EPs: generated and disseminated rapid evidence) and 11 service ssers (SUs: GPs and policy-makers, who used the evidence).

main outcome measuresParticipant perceptions.

resultsThe Policy Project comprised 27 EPs, producing 30 reports across 1432 person-work-days. The GP project comprised 10 members from 3 organisations, meeting 49 times and posting evidence-based answers to 126 questions. Four unique themes were generated. 'The Work' highlighted that a structured but flexible organisational approach to producing evidence was essential. Ensuring quality of evidence products was challenging, particularly in the context of absent or poor-quality evidence. 'The Use' highlighted that rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. Trust and credibility of EPs were key, however, communication difficulties were highlighted by SUs (eg, website functionality). 'The Team' emphasised that a highly skilled team, working collaboratively, is essential to meeting the substantial workload demands and tight turnaround time. 'The Future' highlighted that investing in resources, planning and embedding evidence synthesis support, is crucial to national emergency preparedness.

conclusionsRapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. The credibility of EPs, a close relationship with SUs and having a highly skilled and adaptable team to meet the workload demands were identified as key strengths that optimised the utilisation of rapid evidence. ETHICS APPROVAL: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee for COVID-19-related Research, Ireland.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PracticeDecision MakingHumansPandemicsQualitative ResearchCOVID-19Evidence-Based PracticePRIMARY CAREPublic healthQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID35772940
PMCPMC9887371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.