Abstract
Abstract
Background
The rapid identification and adoption of effective innovations in healthcare is a known challenge. The strongest evidence base for innovations can be provided by evidence synthesis, but this is frequently a lengthy process and even rapid versions of this can be time-consuming and complex. In the UK, the Accelerated Access Review and Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) have provided the impetus to develop a consistently rapid process to support the identification and adoption of high-value innovations in the English NHS.
Methods
The Greater Manchester Applied Research Collaboration (ARC-GM) developed a framework for a rapid evidence synthesis (RES) approach, which is highly integrated within the innovation process of the Greater Manchester AHSN and the associated healthcare and research ecosystem. The RES uses evidence synthesis approaches and draws on the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to provide rapid assessments of the existing evidence and its relevance to specific decision problems. We implemented this in a real-time context of decision-making around adoption of innovative health technologies.
Results
Key stakeholders in the Greater Manchester decision-making process for healthcare innovations have found that our approach is both timely and flexible; it is valued for its combination of rigour and speed.
Our RES approach rapidly and systematically identifies, appraises and contextualises relevant evidence, which can then be transparently incorporated into decisions about the wider adoption of innovations. The RES also identifies limitations in existing evidence for innovations and this can inform subsequent evaluations. There is substantial interest from other ARCs and AHSNs in implementing a similar process. We are currently exploring methods to make completed RES publicly available. We are also exploring methods to evaluate the impact of using RES as more implementation decisions are made.
Conclusions
The RES framework we have implemented combines transparency and consistency with flexibility and rapidity. It therefore maximises utility in a real-time decision-making context for healthcare innovations.
Funder
National Institute for Health Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference76 articles.
1. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012545.
2. Cochrane. Proposing and registering new Cochrane Reviews https://community.cochrane.org/review-production/production-resources/proposing-and-registering-new-cochrane-reviews: Cochrane Community. Accessed Nov 2020.
3. Featherstone R, Dryden D, Foisy M, Guise J-M, Mitchell M, Paynter R, et al. Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Syst Rev. 2015;4:50.
4. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13–22.
5. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献