Conducting two evidence syntheses in six weeks - experiences with and evaluation of a pilot project.

Autor: Ames HMR; The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), PO Box 222, Oslo, Skøyen, 0213, Norway. heather.ames@fhi.no., Kornør H; The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), PO Box 222, Oslo, Skøyen, 0213, Norway., Evensen LH; The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), PO Box 222, Oslo, Skøyen, 0213, Norway., Lidal IB; The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), PO Box 222, Oslo, Skøyen, 0213, Norway., Hafstad E; The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), PO Box 222, Oslo, Skøyen, 0213, Norway., Hestevik CH; The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), PO Box 222, Oslo, Skøyen, 0213, Norway., Jardim PSJ; The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), PO Box 222, Oslo, Skøyen, 0213, Norway., Hval G; The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), PO Box 222, Oslo, Skøyen, 0213, Norway.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: BMC medical research methodology [BMC Med Res Methodol] 2024 Sep 16; Vol. 24 (1), pp. 208. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 16.
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02334-y
Abstrakt: Background: Evidence synthesis organisations are trying to meet commissioners' needs for rapid responses to their evidence synthesis commissions. In this project we piloted an intensive process, working to complete evidence syntheses within six-weeks, rather than the standard lead time of 4-6 months. Our objective was to explore how researchers experience working intensively, identify barriers and facilitators, and determine how a more intensive approach to evidence synthesis could be more systematically introduced in the future.
Methods: In a pre-planning phase, an intensive work group was established, and two commissions were selected for this pilot project. The evidence synthesis process was divided into two phases: planning and intensive. The planning phase, involved scheduling the intensive phase, exploring new digital tools, and identifying peer reviewers. The intensive phase encompassed the entire evidence synthesis process. Two review teams were formed, each with a team lead supported by a process lead and leadership contact point. Throughout the project, teams engaged in reflective meetings to evaluate and adjust processes as needed.
Results: During the planning phase, teams identified significant uncertainties regarding scopes, research questions, and inclusion criteria. To address this, they engaged with commissioners earlier than originally planned, clarified these aspects, and prepared protocols. Despite some minor deviations from the original plan, both reviews were completed on schedule, with one team expanding their scope due to the absence of eligible studies. Teams operated flexibly, held regular meetings, and found the process seamless due to fewer interruptions. Machine learning tools facilitated rapid study selection. The process lead role, created to guide and evaluate the project, proved beneficial, providing structure and support, although clearer role delineation with the leadership contact point could have improved efficiency.
Conclusions: Overall, the intensive process fostered focus and productivity, allowing teams to manage short-term deliverables effectively. The researchers preferred working intensively with one evidence synthesis over being involved with many projects at the same time. They felt that time use was more effective, and they were able to complete the tasks in a focused way. However, there are several implications that should be considered before implementing an intensive approach in future evidence syntheses.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje