Australian Health Review Australian Health Review Society
Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Practical applications of rapid review methods in the development of Australian health policy

Robyn Lambert A B , Thomas D. Vreugdenburg A , Nicholas Marlow A , N. Ann Scott A , Lynda McGahan A and David Tivey A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Research, Audit and Academic Surgery Division, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, 199 Ward Street, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia. Email: tom.vreugdenburg@surgeons.org; nicholas.marlow@surgeons.org; capstone@shaw.ca; lmcgahan@mac.com; david.tivey@surgeons.org

B Corresponding author. Email: College.Asernip@surgeons.org

Australian Health Review 41(4) 463-468 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH16041
Submitted: 13 November 2015  Accepted: 5 June 2016   Published: 29 July 2016

Abstract

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a method of evidence synthesis that can provide robust evidence to support policy decisions in a timely manner. Herein we describe the methods used to conduct RRs and present an illustrative case study to describe how RRs can be used to inform contemporary Australian health policy. The aim of the present study was to explore several important aspects of how RRs can inform decision makers. RRs are conducted within limited time frames of as little as 4 weeks. Policy questions may focus on issues of efficacy, service delivery and service organisation rather than reimbursement of new services, which is better answered by a more comprehensive assessment. RRs use flexible and pragmatic methods, which aim to balance the objectivity and rigour required of the reviews within limited time frames. This flexibility allows for great variation across products with regard to length, depth of analysis and methods used. As a result, RRs can be specifically tailored to address targeted policy questions and are a useful tool in the development of Australian health policy.


References

[1]  Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci 2010; 5 56
Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews.CrossRef | 20642853PubMed |

[2]  Polisena J, Garritty C, Kamel C, Stevens A, Abou-Setta M. Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods. Syst Rev 2015; 4 26
Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods.CrossRef | 25874967PubMed |

[3]  Khangura S, Polisena J, Clifford TJ, Farrah K, Kamel C. Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30 20–7.
Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment.CrossRef | 24451157PubMed |

[4]  Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9 34
Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’.CrossRef | 19519887PubMed |

[5]  Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E, Anderson J, Belinson S, Berliner E, Dryden DM, Featherstone R, Mitchell MD, Motu’apuaka M, Noorani H, Paynter R, Robinson KA, Schoelles K, Umscheid CA, Whitlock E. A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68 1451–62e3.
A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts.CrossRef | 26278023PubMed |

[6]  Hayden JA, Killian L, Zygmunt A, Babineau J, Martin-Misener R, Jensen JL, Carter AJ. Methods of a multi-faceted rapid knowledge synthesis project to inform the implementation of a new health service model: collaborative emergency centres. Syst Rev 2015; 4 7
Methods of a multi-faceted rapid knowledge synthesis project to inform the implementation of a new health service model: collaborative emergency centres.CrossRef | 25588468PubMed |

[7]  Eddama O, Coast J. A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making. Health Policy 2008; 86 129–41.
A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making.CrossRef | 18192059PubMed |

[8]  Australian Safety & Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures – Surgical (ASERNIP-S). Spinal surgery for chronic low back pain: review of clinical evidence and guidelines. Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. Available at: https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/getfile/?sc_itemid=%7B6AF50D02-72FE-45D0-869C-82873207264D%7D&title=Spinal%20Surgery%20for%20Chronic%20Low%20Back%20Pain [verified 15 April 2016].

[9]  Atkinson L, Zacest A. Surgical management of low back pain. Med J Aust 2016; 204 299–300.
Surgical management of low back pain.CrossRef | 27125798PubMed |

[10]  Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, Facey K, Hailey D, Norderhaug I, Maddern G. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg 2008; 78 1037–40.
Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice?CrossRef | 18959712PubMed |

[11]  Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323 42–6.
Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3Mzos1OltQ%3D%3D&md5=dccc4c45da6032c5a6d0f5b1cafbe2b3CAS | 11440947PubMed |

[12]  Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352 609–13.
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DyaK1cvhslWjtg%3D%3D&md5=38784f706cf69cf627987781f422a74aCAS | 9746022PubMed |

[13]  Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59 697–703.
Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews.CrossRef | 16765272PubMed |

[14]  Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, Liberati A. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53 964–72.
What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2FhtFWqsw%3D%3D&md5=0c4ec05d6a8902c768410123cc9d52afCAS | 11004423PubMed |

[15]  Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 1–90.
The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3srovFagsA%3D%3D&md5=c4a976f3fa0406b7921b6385c17dd960CAS | 14670218PubMed |

[16]  Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19 591–603.
Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches.CrossRef | 15095765PubMed |

[17]  Topfer LA, Parada A, Menon D, Noorani H, Perras C, Serra-Prat M. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15 297–303.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1MvjslSrtQ%3D%3D&md5=b1188f2ba38eef04d90fb6b2a07c615cCAS | 10507189PubMed |

[18]  McManus RJ, Wilson S, Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Hyde CJ, Tobias RS, Jowett S, Hobbs FD. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. BMJ 1998; 317 1562–3.
Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FlsFajuw%3D%3D&md5=cceeb6a51916755f6ecc5b49f869fa99CAS | 9836655PubMed |

[19]  Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst 2006; 4 26
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines.CrossRef | 17156458PubMed |

[20]  Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 2012; 1 10
Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach.CrossRef | 22587960PubMed |

[21]  Saul JE, Willis CD, Bitz J, Best A. A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review. Implement Sci 2013; 8 103
A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review.CrossRef | 24007206PubMed |

[22]  Harker J, Kleijnen J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments. Int J Evid-Based Healthc 2012; 10 397–410.
What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments.CrossRef | 23173665PubMed |

[23]  Baghbanian A, Hughes I, Kebriaei A, Khavarpour FA. Adaptive decision-making: how Australian healthcare managers decide. Aust Health Rev 2012; 36 49–56.
Adaptive decision-making: how Australian healthcare managers decide.CrossRef | 22513020PubMed |

[24]  Featherstone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M, Guise JM, Mitchell MD, Paynter RA, Robinson KA, Umscheid CA, Hartling L. Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Syst Rev 2015; 4 50
Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews.CrossRef | 25925676PubMed |

[25]  Humphreys JS, Kuipers P, Wakerman J, Wells R, Jones JA, Kinsman LD. How far can systematic reviews inform policy development for ‘wicked’ rural health service problems? Aust Health Rev 2009; 33 592–600.
How far can systematic reviews inform policy development for ‘wicked’ rural health service problems?CrossRef | 20166908PubMed |

[26]  Merlin T, Tamblyn D, Ellery B. What’s in a name? Developing definitions for common health technology assessment product types of the international network of agencies for health technology assessment (INAHTA). Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30 430–37.
| 25397872PubMed |

[27]  Lopes E, Street J, Carter D, Merlin T. Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expect 2016; 19 331–44.
Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia.CrossRef | 25703958PubMed |

[28]  Whitty JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health 2013; 16 155–63.
An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations.CrossRef | 23337227PubMed |

[29]  Bonias D, Leggat SG, Bartram T. Encouraging participation in health system reform: is clinical engagement a useful concept for policy and management? Aust Health Rev 2012; 36 378–83.
Encouraging participation in health system reform: is clinical engagement a useful concept for policy and management?CrossRef | 23062697PubMed |

[30]  Whitty JA, Littlejohns P. Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2015; 119 127–36.
Social values and health priority setting in Australia: an analysis applied to the context of health technology assessment.CrossRef | 25267072PubMed |

[31]  Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7 10
| 17302989PubMed |

[32]  The AGREE Collaboration Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12 18–23.
Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project.CrossRef | 12571340PubMed |



Export Citation Cited By (1)

View Altmetrics