Table 4 Key informant interviews: themes about review products
From: Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews
Category (features of the producer, report, or decision) | Theme | Description |
|---|---|---|
Producer | Trust | • This was the primary issue that arose in the context of how end-users valued a review, and whether they would rely on a rapid product • Methodological alterations appear to be secondary to the trust established through consistent products and active end-user engagement |
Producer | Close working relationship | • Maintaining a close working relationship between the end-user and the review producer was considered important to ensure that the key questions reflected the end-user’s needs |
Report | Relevance of the key questions | • Key informants stressed this, noting that if questions did not directly address the specific end-users’ needs, the review was of little or no value, regardless of the methods used |
Report | Quality/strength of evidence and evidence tables | • Several key informants found these elements to be essential and often the most valuable part of the reports • End-users liked to see outcome data, individual study quality, and overall quality/strength of evidence assessment summarized in a readily accessible form |
Report | Responsibility of reviewers to highlight methodological considerations/limitations | • Reviewers need to help users understand potential ramifications of streamlined methods as end-users may not be aware of standard review steps and accepted methodological approaches |
Decision | Ability to easily change or reverse a decision | • May be one hallmark of when a rapid product is useful • For example, key informants expressed that a full systematic review is more often necessary for clinical practice guidelines, broad application of the evidence (e.g., “change the direction of the organization on a very important topic”), or macro topics (e.g., population-level implementation) • Conversely, a rapid product may be sufficient: for decisions being made on a local basis (e.g., point-of-care clinical decisions, nuanced clinical situations, local coverage decisions) where there is not the same level of scrutiny; for “in the moment sort of decisions”; to act as an update for a previous comprehensive guideline or address an issue that comes up secondary or subsequent to a guideline; or to get a general sense of the literature or scale of the issue |
Decision | There is generally more than the evidence of benefits and harms to consider when making a decision | • Rapid products provide one source of information among an array of other considerations for decision-making • Other factors include context and varied viewpoints, the burden of disease and population affected, and costs. • Due to these other factors, there may be less perceived risk of using a rapid product |