Health Res Policy Syst

ISSN:

国家:

威尔士

影响因子:

SCIE收录情况:

JCR分区:

Helen Morgan; Helen Morgan; Ruth Lewis; Jane Noyes; Natalie Joseph-Williams; David Jarrom; Tom Winfield; Rebecca-Jane Law; Elizabeth Doe; Deborah Edwards; Hannah Shaw; Llinos Haf Spencer; Elise Hasler; Adrian Edwards; Micaela Gal; Judith Carrier; Jennifer Washington; Alison Cooper; Mala Mann
2025-03-20 相关链接

摘要

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic presented policymakers with time-sensitive decision problems and a rapidly increasing volume of research, not all of which was robust, or relevant to local contexts. A bespoke evidence review process supporting stakeholder engagement was developed as part of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC), which could flexibly react to the needs of decision-makers, to address urgent requests within days or months as required. Aims: To describe and appraise the WCEC review process and methods and identify key learning points. Methods: Three types of rapid review products were used, which could accommodate the breadth of decision problems and topics covered. Stakeholder (including public) engagement was integrated from the onset and supported throughout. The methods used were tailored depending on the needs of the decision-maker, type of research question, timeframe, and volume and type of evidence. We appraised the overall process and compared the methods used with the most recent and relevant best practice guidance. Results: The remote collaboration between research teams, establishing a clear pathway to impact upfront, and the strong stakeholder involvement embedded in the review process were considered particular strengths. Several key learning points were identified, which focused on: enhancing stakeholders' abilities to identify focused policy-relevant research questions; the collection and storage of review protocols at a central location; tightening quality assurance process regarding study selection, data extraction and quality assessment; adequate reporting of methodological shortcuts and understanding by stakeholders; piloting of an algorithm for assigning study design descriptors, and a single quality assessment tool covering multiple study designs; and incorporate, where appropriate an assessment of the confidence in the overall body of evidence using GRADE or similar framework. Conclusions: The review process enabled a high volume of questions that were directly relevant to policy and clinical decision making to be addressed in a timely manner using a transparent and tailored approach.

COVID-19; Evidence synthesis programme; Pandemic; Rapid reviews; Stakeholder involvement

卫生服务 ; 卫生治理

混合人群

Not Available

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。