Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews

Garritty, Chantelle; Gartlehner, Gerald; Nußbaumer-Streit, Barbara; King, Valerie; Hamel, Candyce; Kamel, Chris; Affengruber, Lisa; Stevens, Adrienne

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007

Cited by 732 publications

(854 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

706

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The research questions for this review are: (1) how have confidence and receptiveness for COVID-19 vaccines changed; (2) does survey design affect responses; and 3what factors are associated with vaccination decision, unique to COVID-19. To help inform policy makers, health departments, and healthcare professionals in a timely manner, we streamlined the systematic review process for a rapid review [14]. The attenuated process included limiting searches to publications in English and not posting protocol to a systematic review registry.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While COVID-19 continues raging worldwide, effective vaccines are highly anticipated. However, vaccine hesitancy is widespread. Survey results on uptake intentions vary and continue to change. This review compared trends and synthesized findings in vaccination receptivity over time across US and international polls, assessing survey design influences and evaluating context to inform policies and practices. Data sources included academic literature (PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO following PRISMA guidelines), news and official reports published by 20 October 2020. Two researchers independently screened potential peer-reviewed articles and syndicated polls for eligibility; 126 studies and surveys were selected. Declining vaccine acceptance (from >70% in March to <50% in October) with demographic, socioeconomic, and partisan divides was observed. Perceived risk, concerns over vaccine safety and effectiveness, doctors’ recommendations, and inoculation history were common factors. Impacts of regional infection rates, gender, and personal COVID-19 experience were inconclusive. Unique COVID-19 factors included political party orientation, doubts toward expedited development/approval process, and perceived political interference. Many receptive participants preferred to wait until others have taken the vaccine; mandates could increase resistance. Survey wording and answer options showed influence on responses. To achieve herd immunity, communication campaigns are immediately needed, focusing on transparency and restoring trust in health authorities.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Planning, conducting and reporting of this study was based on the guidelines for rapid reviews [ 17 ], set by the WHO [ 16 ] and the recent COVID-19 Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendations [ 18 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health and social care workers (HSCWs) have carried a heavy burden during the COVID-19 crisis and, in the challenge to control the virus, have directly faced its consequences. Supporting their psychological wellbeing continues, therefore, to be a priority. This rapid review was carried out to establish whether there are any identifiable risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes amongst HSCWs during the COVID-19 crisis. Methods We undertook a rapid review of the literature following guidelines by the WHO and the Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendations. We searched across 14 databases, executing the search at two different time points. We included published, observational and experimental studies that reported the psychological effects on HSCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results The 24 studies included in this review reported data predominantly from China (18 out of 24 included studies) and most sampled urban hospital staff. Our study indicates that COVID-19 has a considerable impact on the psychological wellbeing of front-line hospital staff. Results suggest that nurses may be at higher risk of adverse mental health outcomes during this pandemic, but no studies compare this group with the primary care workforce. Furthermore, no studies investigated the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social care staff. Other risk factors identified were underlying organic illness, gender (female), concern about family, fear of infection, lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) and close contact with COVID-19. Systemic support, adequate knowledge and resilience were identified as factors protecting against adverse mental health outcomes. Conclusions The evidence to date suggests that female nurses with close contact with COVID-19 patients may have the most to gain from efforts aimed at supporting psychological well-being. However, inconsistencies in findings and a lack of data collected outside of hospital settings, suggest that we should not exclude any groups when addressing psychological well-being in health and social care workers. Whilst psychological interventions aimed at enhancing resilience in the individual may be of benefit, it is evident that to build a resilient workforce, occupational and environmental factors must be addressed. Further research including social care workers and analysis of wider societal structural factors is recommended.

show abstract

“…This rapid review used a modified version of the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group's interim recommendations of methodology 6 . A rapid literature review was chosen due to the need to efficiently hasten the acquisition of relevant evidence to be applied in the current health care climate.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modified telehealth for care of chronic wounds during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A rapid literature review of alternative care modalities

Bondini

Sage

Wilson

et al. 2020

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the changes in delivering medical care during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, such as the heavy reliance on telehealth, it is worth exploring if this is suitable when treating complex wounds. A literature rapid review was performed to explore the existing evidence around alternative service delivery modalities. While there are organisations that have successful telehealth systems and infrastructure, for services that do not already widely use telehealth it is difficult to implement a standardised system in the current state of emergency. The evidence reviewed demonstrates that telehealth appears to currently have a limited place in chronic wound management; therefore, standardisation on determining suitability in conjunction with evaluation of telehealth during this period is needed to shape implementation of telehealth systems in the future.

show abstract

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews

Cited by 732 publications

References 30 publications

Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review

Confidence and Receptivity for COVID-19 Vaccines: A Rapid Systematic Review

A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being

Modified telehealth for care of chronic wounds during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A rapid literature review of alternative care modalities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About