Methods to support evidence-informed decision-making in the midst of COVID-19: creation and evolution of a rapid review service from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 public health crisis has produced an immense and quickly evolving body of evidence. This research speed and volume, along with variability in quality, could overwhelm public health decision-makers striving to make timely decisions based on the best available evidence. In response to this challenge, the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools developed a Rapid Evidence Service, building on internationally accepted rapid review methodologies, to address priority COVID-19 public health questions. Results Each week, the Rapid Evidence Service team receives requests from public health decision-makers, prioritizes questions received, and frames the prioritized topics into searchable questions. We develop and conduct a comprehensive search strategy and critically appraise all relevant evidence using validated tools. We synthesize the findings into a final report that includes key messages, with a rating of the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, as well as an overview of evidence and remaining knowledge gaps. Rapid reviews are typically completed and disseminated within two weeks. From May 2020 to July 21, 2021, we have answered more than 31 distinct questions and completed 32 updates as new evidence emerged. Reviews receive an average of 213 downloads per week, with some reaching over 7700. To date reviews have been accessed and cited around the world, and a more fulsome evaluation of impact on decision-making is planned. Conclusions The development, evolution, and lessons learned from our process, presented here, provides a real-world example of how review-level evidence can be made available – rapidly and rigorously, and in response to decision-makers’ needs – during an unprecedented public health crisis.

Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

“…The experiences outlined in this report, similar to other teams, 29 demonstrates that highly skilled staff are available and can be mobilised quickly to make a great contribution to decision making. However, the course of this pandemic and the extent of resourcing required also demonstrates that it is not feasible or appropriate to rely on the goodwill of individuals and organisations alone in planning for future health emergencies.…”

“…The team involved in the HP project was a pre-existing HTA team with wide experience in conducting systematic reviews and HTAs who were mobilised quickly to provide support to policy-makers. Like other similar projects, this facilitated adaptation of existing processes to a rapid format 26 29…”

“…To meet urgent need for evidence to support decision making, evidence synthesis groups internationally have utilised approaches, for example, living reviews23 24 and rapid reviews 12 25–28. As in this study, rapid review teams elsewhere were mobilised from existing resources and expertise (eg, Norway26 and Canada)29 while others represent new collaborations (eg, Oxford) 28. Similar levels of workload were reported elsewhere with turnaround times of up to 4 days in Norway and the USA 26 27.…”

“…The provision of rapid evidence products during COVID-19 has been challenging 12. First, the workload was enormous, as evidenced by the volume of reports produced during the period of this evaluation and by other similar teams26 28 29 There has been an explosion of COVID-19 literature, with an analysis of Scopus on 1 August 2021 identifying 210 183 COVID-19-related publications including 720 801 authors 34. This unprecedented level of publication creates huge workload for evidence synthesis steps such as searching and screening, resulting in long working hours which are unsustainable, particularly in voluntary roles.…”

Education sector risk assessment in the time of pandemic

“…In an article of monitoring and evaluation studies [39], disaster risk assessment is a process to determine the nature and magnitude of such risk by evaluating threats and determining existing vulnerability situations that could potentially harm vulnerable persons, properties, infrastructure, livelihoods, and the ecosystem they depend on. Therefore, informed decisions can be made on disaster-reducing measures [39], [40]. Bridging the gap between the pandemic and a successful disaster risk reduction and management plan involves disaster risk analysis and assessment with the help of the stakeholders.…”