The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), PO Box 222, Oslo, Skøyen, 0213, Norway.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Sep 16;24(1):208. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02334-y.
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.
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.
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.
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.
证据综合组织正在努力满足决策者对其证据综合委托的快速响应需求。在这个项目中，我们试点了一个强化流程，力争在六周内完成证据综合，而不是标准的 4-6 个月的前置时间。我们的目标是探讨研究人员在强化工作环境下的体验，识别障碍和促进因素，并确定如何在未来更系统地引入更强化的证据综合方法。
在预先规划阶段，成立了一个强化工作组，并为这个试点项目选择了两个委托。证据综合过程分为两个阶段：规划和强化。规划阶段包括安排强化阶段、探索新的数字工具和确定同行评审员。强化阶段涵盖了整个证据综合过程。成立了两个审查团队，每个团队都有一名团队负责人，由一名流程负责人和领导联系点提供支持。在整个项目过程中，团队进行了反思会议，以根据需要评估和调整流程。
在规划阶段，团队确定了在范围、研究问题和纳入标准方面存在重大不确定性。为了解决这些问题，他们比原计划更早地与决策者进行了接触，澄清了这些方面，并准备了方案。尽管与原计划略有偏离，但两次审查都按计划完成，其中一个团队由于缺乏合格的研究而扩大了范围。团队灵活运作，定期开会，由于中断较少，因此整个过程无缝衔接。机器学习工具促进了快速的研究选择。为了指导和评估项目而创建的流程负责人角色非常有益，提供了结构和支持，尽管与领导联系点更明确地划分角色可能会提高效率。
总的来说，强化过程促进了专注和生产力，使团队能够有效地管理短期交付成果。研究人员更喜欢同时专注于一个证据综合，而不是同时参与多个项目。他们认为时间利用更有效，并且能够以专注的方式完成任务。然而，在未来的证据综合中实施强化方法之前，需要考虑几个影响因素。
