TY - JOUR
T1 - User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making
AU - Peterson, Kim
AU - Floyd, Nicole
AU - Ferguson, Lauren
AU - Christensen, Vivian
AU - Helfand, Mark
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Amy Kilbourne, PhD MPH, and Julia Haskin, MA, for their feedback on manuscript drafts. This material is based upon the work funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative, and Evidence-Based Synthesis Program (Project # 09-199). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government. The funders reviewed the manuscript but had no role in conducting the work or writing the manuscript. Any comments received by the funders were taken at the discretion of the authors independently.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 The Author(s).
PY - 2016/8/5
Y1 - 2016/8/5
N2 - Background: To provide evidence synthesis for faster-paced healthcare decision-making, rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined alternative to standard systematic reviews. In 2012, the Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Program (VA ESP) added rapid reviews to support Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operational partners' more urgent decision-making needs. VHA operational partners play a substantial role in dissemination of ESP rapid reviews through a variety of routes, including posting on the VA ESP's public website ( http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/ ). As demand for rapid reviews rises, much progress has been made in characterizing methods and practices. However, evidence synthesis organizations still seek to better understand how and when rapid reviews are being used. Methods: The VA ESP administered an online survey to rapid review operational partners. The survey assessed the nature of decision-making needs, overall perception of review content, resulting actions, and implementation timeframe. We use descriptive statistics and narrative methods to summarize findings. Results: Between October 2011 and April 2015, we completed 12 rapid reviews for 35 operational partners. Operational partners were primarily non-academic subject matter experts with VA operations' decision-making authority. The most common topic categories reviewed were policy or system (50%) or process of care (42%) initiatives. Median report completion time was 14.5weeks. Survey response rate was 46%, with at least one operational partner responding for 92% of reports. Reviews served multiple purposes including policy directive or regulation (72%), supporting program development and evaluation (55%), identifying future research needs (45%), and determining implementation strategy (45%). Overall, operational partners' perception of report content was positive. A majority of rapid reviews were used immediately and informed actions ranking high on the Institute of Medicine's Degrees of Impact framework: 45.4 % effected change, 18.2 % inspired action, 18.2 % informed the field, 9.1 % received recognition, and 9.1 % spread a message. Conclusions: VA ESP rapid reviews have increased the VHA's uptake of evidence to inform time-sensitive system-level decision-making. Key areas of interest for future evaluation include assessing user perception of our streamlined methods and the quality of our efforts to inform users of these methods, as well as comparing the usability and impact of our rapid and standard systematic reviews.
AB - Background: To provide evidence synthesis for faster-paced healthcare decision-making, rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined alternative to standard systematic reviews. In 2012, the Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Program (VA ESP) added rapid reviews to support Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operational partners' more urgent decision-making needs. VHA operational partners play a substantial role in dissemination of ESP rapid reviews through a variety of routes, including posting on the VA ESP's public website ( http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/ ). As demand for rapid reviews rises, much progress has been made in characterizing methods and practices. However, evidence synthesis organizations still seek to better understand how and when rapid reviews are being used. Methods: The VA ESP administered an online survey to rapid review operational partners. The survey assessed the nature of decision-making needs, overall perception of review content, resulting actions, and implementation timeframe. We use descriptive statistics and narrative methods to summarize findings. Results: Between October 2011 and April 2015, we completed 12 rapid reviews for 35 operational partners. Operational partners were primarily non-academic subject matter experts with VA operations' decision-making authority. The most common topic categories reviewed were policy or system (50%) or process of care (42%) initiatives. Median report completion time was 14.5weeks. Survey response rate was 46%, with at least one operational partner responding for 92% of reports. Reviews served multiple purposes including policy directive or regulation (72%), supporting program development and evaluation (55%), identifying future research needs (45%), and determining implementation strategy (45%). Overall, operational partners' perception of report content was positive. A majority of rapid reviews were used immediately and informed actions ranking high on the Institute of Medicine's Degrees of Impact framework: 45.4 % effected change, 18.2 % inspired action, 18.2 % informed the field, 9.1 % received recognition, and 9.1 % spread a message. Conclusions: VA ESP rapid reviews have increased the VHA's uptake of evidence to inform time-sensitive system-level decision-making. Key areas of interest for future evaluation include assessing user perception of our streamlined methods and the quality of our efforts to inform users of these methods, as well as comparing the usability and impact of our rapid and standard systematic reviews.
KW - Decision-making
KW - Evidence synthesis
KW - Implementation
KW - Program impact
KW - Rapid review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84982834002&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84982834002&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s13643-016-0306-5
DO - 10.1186/s13643-016-0306-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 27491354
AN - SCOPUS:84982834002
SN - 2046-4053
VL - 5
JO - Systematic Reviews
JF - Systematic Reviews
IS - 1
M1 - 132
ER -