Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36600433›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Approaches to enabling rapid evaluation of innovations in health and social care: a scoping review of evidence from high-income countries.

Gill Norman, Thomas Mason, Jo C Dumville, Peter Bower, Paul Wilson, Nicky Cullum

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Balancing Trade-Offs in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Rapid Evaluation: Reflections and Lessons.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Gill NormanDivision of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work; School of Health Sciences; Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK gill.norman@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3972-5733
Thomas MasonCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research; School of Health Sciences; Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3135-0364
Jo C DumvilleDivision of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work; School of Health Sciences; Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6546-3685
Peter BowerManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Research and Innovation Division, Manchester University Foundation NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9558-3349
Paul WilsonManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Research and Innovation Division, Manchester University Foundation NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2657-5780
Nicky CullumDivision of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work; School of Health Sciences; Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2631-123X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for rapid evaluation of innovation in health and social care. Assessment of rapid methodologies is lacking although challenges in ensuring rigour and effective use of resources are known. We mapped reports of rapid evaluations of health and social care innovations, categorised different approaches to rapid evaluation, explored comparative benefits of rapid evaluation, and identified knowledge gaps.

designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases were searched through 13 September 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included publications reporting primary research or methods for rapid evaluation of interventions or services in health and social care in high-income countries. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers developed and piloted a data extraction form. One reviewer extracted data, a second reviewer checked 10% of the studies; disagreements and uncertainty were resolved through consensus. We used narrative synthesis to map different approaches to conducting rapid evaluation.

resultsWe identified 16 759 records and included 162 which met inclusion criteria.We identified four main approaches for rapid evaluation: (1) Using methodology designed specifically for rapid evaluation; (2) Increasing rapidity by doing less or using less time-intensive methodology; (3) Using alternative technologies and/or data to increase speed of existing evaluation method; (4) Adapting part of non-rapid evaluation.The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an increase in publications and some limited changes in identified methods. We found little research comparing rapid and non-rapid evaluation.

conclusionsWe found a lack of clarity about what 'rapid evaluation' means but identified some useful preliminary categories. There is a need for clarity and consistency about what constitutes rapid evaluation; consistent terminology in reporting evaluations as rapid; development of specific methodologies for making evaluation more rapid; and assessment of advantages and disadvantages of rapid methodology in terms of rigour, cost and impact.

Indexed as

COVID-19Developed CountriesHumansPandemicsSocial SupportOrganisation of health servicesQuality in health careSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID36600433
PMCPMC10580278

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.