Expediting evidence synthesis for healthcare decision-making: exploring attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews using Q methodology

Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use evidence-informed policy and practice approaches. A range of opinions and viewpoints on rapid reviews is thought to exist; however, no research to date h...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPeerJ (San Francisco, CA) Vol. 4; p. e2522
Main Authors Kelly, Shannon E, Moher, David, Clifford, Tammy J
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States PeerJ. Ltd 06.10.2016
PeerJ, Inc
PeerJ Inc
Subjects
Analysis
Attitude
Attitudes
Decision making
Epidemiology
Evidence producer
Factor analysis
Health care
Health Policy
Opinion
Perceptions
Questions and answers
Rapid review
Research methodology
Reviews
Studies
Time factor
Viewpoint
Rapid review
Opinion
Attitude
Viewpoint
Evidence producer
Q method
Time factor
Evidence synthesis
Knowledge user
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Abstract Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use evidence-informed policy and practice approaches. A range of opinions and viewpoints on rapid reviews is thought to exist; however, no research to date has formally captured these views. This paper aims to explore evidence producer and knowledge user attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews. A Q methodology study was conducted to identify central viewpoints about rapid reviews based on a broad topic discourse. Participants rank-ordered 50 text statements and explained their Q-sort in free-text comments. Individual Q-sorts were analysed using Q-Assessor (statistical method: factor analysis with varimax rotation). Factors, or salient viewpoints on rapid reviews, were identified, interpreted and described. Analysis of the 11 individual Q sorts identified three prominent viewpoints: Factor A cautions against the use of study design labels to make judgements. Factor B maintains that rapid reviews should be the exception and not the rule. Factor C focuses on the practical needs of the end-user over the review process. Results show that there are opposing viewpoints on rapid reviews, yet some unity exists. The three factors described offer insight into how and why various stakeholders act as they do and what issues may need to be resolved before increase uptake of the evidence from rapid reviews can be realized in healthcare decision-making environments.
AbstractList Background Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use evidence-informed policy and practice approaches. A range of opinions and viewpoints on rapid reviews is thought to exist; however, no research to date has formally captured these views. This paper aims to explore evidence producer and knowledge user attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews. Methods A Q methodology study was conducted to identify central viewpoints about rapid reviews based on a broad topic discourse. Participants rank-ordered 50 text statements and explained their Q-sort in free-text comments. Individual Q-sorts were analysed using Q-Assessor (statistical method: factor analysis with varimax rotation). Factors, or salient viewpoints on rapid reviews, were identified, interpreted and described. Results Analysis of the 11 individual Q sorts identified three prominent viewpoints: Factor A cautions against the use of study design labels to make judgements. Factor B maintains that rapid reviews should be the exception and not the rule. Factor C focuses on the practical needs of the end-user over the review process. Conclusion Results show that there are opposing viewpoints on rapid reviews, yet some unity exists. The three factors described offer insight into how and why various stakeholders act as they do and what issues may need to be resolved before increase uptake of the evidence from rapid reviews can be realized in healthcare decision-making environments.
Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use evidence-informed policy and practice approaches. A range of opinions and viewpoints on rapid reviews is thought to exist; however, no research to date has formally captured these views. This paper aims to explore evidence producer and knowledge user attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews. A Q methodology study was conducted to identify central viewpoints about rapid reviews based on a broad topic discourse. Participants rank-ordered 50 text statements and explained their Q-sort in free-text comments. Individual Q-sorts were analysed using Q-Assessor (statistical method: factor analysis with varimax rotation). Factors, or salient viewpoints on rapid reviews, were identified, interpreted and described. Analysis of the 11 individual Q sorts identified three prominent viewpoints: Factor A cautions against the use of study design labels to make judgements. Factor B maintains that rapid reviews should be the exception and not the rule. Factor C focuses on the practical needs of the end-user over the review process. Results show that there are opposing viewpoints on rapid reviews, yet some unity exists. The three factors described offer insight into how and why various stakeholders act as they do and what issues may need to be resolved before increase uptake of the evidence from rapid reviews can be realized in healthcare decision-making environments.
Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use evidence-informed policy and practice approaches. A range of opinions and viewpoints on rapid reviews is thought to exist; however, no research to date has formally captured these views. This paper aims to explore evidence producer and knowledge user attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews. A Q methodology study was conducted to identify central viewpoints about rapid reviews based on a broad topic discourse. Participants rank-ordered 50 text statements and explained their Q-sort in free-text comments. Individual Q-sorts were analysed using Q-Assessor (statistical method: factor analysis with varimax rotation). Factors, or salient viewpoints on rapid reviews, were identified, interpreted and described. Analysis of the 11 individual Q sorts identified three prominent viewpoints: Factor A cautions against the use of study design labels to make judgements. Factor B maintains that rapid reviews should be the exception and not the rule. Factor C focuses on the practical needs of the end-user over the review process.
BACKGROUNDRapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use evidence-informed policy and practice approaches. A range of opinions and viewpoints on rapid reviews is thought to exist; however, no research to date has formally captured these views. This paper aims to explore evidence producer and knowledge user attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews. METHODSA Q methodology study was conducted to identify central viewpoints about rapid reviews based on a broad topic discourse. Participants rank-ordered 50 text statements and explained their Q-sort in free-text comments. Individual Q-sorts were analysed using Q-Assessor (statistical method: factor analysis with varimax rotation). Factors, or salient viewpoints on rapid reviews, were identified, interpreted and described. RESULTSAnalysis of the 11 individual Q sorts identified three prominent viewpoints: Factor A cautions against the use of study design labels to make judgements. Factor B maintains that rapid reviews should be the exception and not the rule. Factor C focuses on the practical needs of the end-user over the review process. CONCLUSIONResults show that there are opposing viewpoints on rapid reviews, yet some unity exists. The three factors described offer insight into how and why various stakeholders act as they do and what issues may need to be resolved before increase uptake of the evidence from rapid reviews can be realized in healthcare decision-making environments.
ArticleNumber e2522
Audience Academic
Author Moher, David
Clifford, Tammy J
Kelly, Shannon E
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Shannon E
  orcidid: 0000-0002-5520-6095
  surname: Kelly
  fullname: Kelly, Shannon E
  organization: School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
– sequence: 2
  givenname: David
  surname: Moher
  fullname: Moher, David
  organization: School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Centre for Practice Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Tammy J
  surname: Clifford
  fullname: Clifford, Tammy J
  organization: School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; CADTH, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27761324$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNptkmFr1DAYx4tM3Jx74weQgCAi3Jk0TdLshTDG1MFABH0d0uTpXc5eU5N0230Gv7Tp3Zx3YgpJSX___9M8-T8vjnrfQ1G8JHguBBHvB4CwmpesLJ8UJyXhYlZTJo_23o-LsxhXOI-65Limz4rjUghOaFmdFL-u7gewLrl-geDWWegNoLjp0xKii6j1AS1Bd2lpdABkwbjofD9b6x9ZcY7gfuh8mMQ6JZdGCxHp3qIBgoEhZTSi5O90sBEFPTiLQq4CdxGNcVJ9RWtIS2995xebF8XTVncRzh7W0-L7x6tvl59nN18-XV9e3MwMEzjN2jxrSQSBtq25pVIDNE2DDQPgDUjOJeCqqeuyEaSxTW2NLVstMK-JlrSkp8X1ztd6vVJDcGsdNsprp7YbPiyUDsmZDhQGy7jELSaCVxRTKSgRWArcyIoz3mavDzuvYWzWYA30KejuwPTwS--WauFvFcu_UzGSDd4-GAT_c4SY1NpFA12ne_BjVCRfISMlqSf09T_oyo-hz61SRDJcMiYl_kstdD6A61uf65rJVF2wilLK82EyNf8PlR8La2dyxFqX9w8Eb_YEu0xE343bOz4E3-1AE3yMAdrHZhCspsiqbWTVFNkMv9pv3yP6J6D0N0pF6kc
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1016_j_peh_2018_12_001
crossref_primary_10_1177_1356389019841645
crossref_primary_10_1080_10803548_2018_1553752
crossref_primary_10_1177_1098214020932227
crossref_primary_10_1177_1062860618789360
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_017_0446_2
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0274577
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12961_019_0504_4
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12875_020_01144_7
crossref_primary_10_1017_S0266462319000035
crossref_primary_10_1177_02683962231173706
Cites_doi 10.1093/her/cyg121
10.1038/ajg.2009.118
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.012
10.1017/S0266462314000543
10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X
10.1371/journal.pmed.0040119
10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04730.x
10.1037/h0031930
10.1186/s13643-016-0306-5
10.1186/2046-4053-4-4
10.4324/9781315788135
10.1186/2046-4053-1-24
10.1017/S0266462308080185
10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00584.x
10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9
10.4135/9781446251911
10.22488/okstate.93.100504
10.1017/S0266462309990067
10.1002/jrsm.1215
10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
10.1017/S0266462313000664
10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4
10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6
10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x
10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
10.1017/S0266462300101205
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright COPYRIGHT 2016 PeerJ. Ltd.
2016 Kelly et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
2016 Kelly et al. 2016 Kelly et al.
Copyright_xml – notice: COPYRIGHT 2016 PeerJ. Ltd.
– notice: 2016 Kelly et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
– notice: 2016 Kelly et al. 2016 Kelly et al.
DBID NPM
AAYXX
CITATION
3V.
7XB
88I
8FE
8FH
8FK
ABUWG
AFKRA
AZQEC
BBNVY
BENPR
BHPHI
CCPQU
DWQXO
GNUQQ
HCIFZ
LK8
M2P
M7P
PIMPY
PQEST
PQQKQ
PQUKI
PRINS
Q9U
7X8
5PM
DOA
DOI 10.7717/peerj.2522
DatabaseName PubMed
CrossRef
ProQuest Central (Corporate)
ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
Science Database (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest SciTech Collection
ProQuest Natural Science Collection
ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
ProQuest Central
ProQuest Central Essentials
Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Central
Natural Science Collection
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest Central Korea
ProQuest Central Student
SciTech Premium Collection
Biological Sciences
ProQuest Science Database
Biological Science Database
Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central Basic
MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)
Directory of Open Access Journals
DatabaseTitle PubMed
CrossRef
Publicly Available Content Database
ProQuest Science Journals (Alumni Edition)
ProQuest Central Student
ProQuest Biological Science Collection
ProQuest Central Basic
ProQuest Central Essentials
ProQuest Science Journals
ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
SciTech Premium Collection
ProQuest One Community College
ProQuest Natural Science Collection
Biological Science Database
ProQuest SciTech Collection
ProQuest Central China
ProQuest Central
ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
Natural Science Collection
ProQuest Central Korea
Biological Science Collection
ProQuest One Academic
ProQuest Central (Alumni)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList
PubMed


MEDLINE - Academic

Publicly Available Content Database
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: DOA
  name: Directory of Open Access Journals
  url: https://www.doaj.org/
  sourceTypes: Open Website
– sequence: 2
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: BENPR
  name: AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central
  url: https://www.proquest.com/central
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 2167-8359
EndPage e2522
ExternalDocumentID oai_doaj_org_article_0ed5690f01764303973170970b94656f
A543336017
10_7717_peerj_2522
27761324
Genre Journal Article
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
GroupedDBID 3V.
53G
5VS
88I
8FE
8FH
AAFWJ
ABUWG
ADBBV
ADRAZ
AENEX
AFKRA
AFPKN
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AOIJS
AZQEC
BAWUL
BBNVY
BCNDV
BENPR
BHPHI
BPHCQ
CCPQU
DIK
DWQXO
ECGQY
GNUQQ
GROUPED_DOAJ
GX1
H13
HCIFZ
HYE
IAO
IEA
IHR
IHW
ITC
KQ8
LK8
M2P
M48
M7P
M~E
NPM
OK1
PIMPY
PQQKQ
PROAC
RPM
W2D
YAO
AAYXX
CITATION
7XB
8FK
PQEST
PQUKI
PRINS
Q9U
7X8
5PM
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c570t-f570a9171eff86d39aeebbb0c5ee6be9669e04b882b71bdb8dcd2fa70681a9323
IEDL.DBID RPM
ISSN 2167-8359
IngestDate Tue Oct 22 15:11:18 EDT 2024
Tue Sep 17 21:27:05 EDT 2024
Fri Aug 16 22:02:18 EDT 2024
Thu Oct 10 16:20:41 EDT 2024
Tue Nov 19 21:17:05 EST 2024
Tue Nov 12 22:53:47 EST 2024
Tue Aug 20 22:10:05 EDT 2024
Fri Dec 06 00:32:24 EST 2024
Sat Sep 28 07:59:33 EDT 2024
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Keywords Rapid review
Opinion
Attitude
Viewpoint
Evidence producer
Q method
Time factor
Evidence synthesis
Knowledge user
Language English
License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c570t-f570a9171eff86d39aeebbb0c5ee6be9669e04b882b71bdb8dcd2fa70681a9323
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ORCID 0000-0002-5520-6095
OpenAccessLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068451/
PMID 27761324
PQID 1950255990
PQPubID 2045935
ParticipantIDs doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_0ed5690f01764303973170970b94656f
pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5068451
proquest_miscellaneous_1835512181
proquest_journals_1950255990
gale_infotracmisc_A543336017
gale_infotracacademiconefile_A543336017
gale_healthsolutions_A543336017
crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_2522
pubmed_primary_27761324
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2016-10-06
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2016-10-06
PublicationDate_xml – month: 10
  year: 2016
  text: 2016-10-06
  day: 06
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
– name: San Diego
– name: San Francisco, USA
PublicationTitle PeerJ (San Francisco, CA)
PublicationTitleAlternate PeerJ
PublicationYear 2016
Publisher PeerJ. Ltd
PeerJ, Inc
PeerJ Inc
Publisher_xml – name: PeerJ. Ltd
– name: PeerJ, Inc
– name: PeerJ Inc
References 25874967 - Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 14;4:26
27285733 - Res Synth Methods. 2016 Dec;7(4):433-446
19619362 - Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25(3):415-8
26327490 - J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:61-7
18400114 - Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Spring;24(2):133-9
26377409 - BMC Med. 2015 Sep 16;13:224
24411647 - Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):267-76
10932429 - Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 Spring;16(2):651-6
25589399 - Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 14;4:4
19417748 - Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 May;104(5):1086-92
15385430 - Health Educ Res. 2005 Apr;20(2):206-13
21281372 - J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2011 Feb;23(2):67-75
27491354 - Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 05;5(1):132
22626029 - Syst Rev. 2012 May 24;1:24
25925676 - Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 17;4:50
25397872 - Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Oct;30(4):430-7
22587960 - Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1:10
27160255 - Syst Rev. 2016 May 10;5:79
18959712 - ANZ J Surg. 2008 Nov;78(11):1037-40
24451157 - Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Jan;30(1):20-7
23173665 - Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012 Dec;10(4):397-410
17535099 - PLoS Med. 2007 May;4(5):e119
22681772 - Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 09;1:28
20642853 - Implement Sci. 2010 Jul 19;5:56
Schünemann (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-29) 2007; 4
Tricco (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-34) 2016; 70
Polisena (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-26) 2015; 4
Akhtar-Danesh (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-2) 2011; 23
Watt (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-37) 2008b; 78
Watt (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-36) 2008a; 24
Glasziou (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-11) 2014; 383
Curt (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-7) 1994
Pham (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-25) 2016
van Exel (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-35) 2005
Cross (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-6) 2005; 20
Merlin (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-22) 2014; 30
Fuerntratt (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-9) 1969; 15
Kelly (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-18) 2016; 5
Hailey (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-13) 2009; 25
Hailey (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-14) 2000; 16
Khangura (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-20) 2014; 30
Peterson (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-24) 2016; 5
Gough (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-12) 2012; 1
Moher (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-23) 2015
Harker (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-16) 2012; 10
Kline (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-21) 2014
Watts (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-38) 2012
Rogers (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-28) 1995
Hartling (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-17) 2015
Khangura (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-19) 2012; 1
Tricco (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-32) 2015
Schünemann (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-30) 2015; 4
Ajzen (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-1) 1972; 21
Yuan (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-39) 2009; 104
Ganann (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-10) 2010; 5
Shamseer (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-31) 2012; 1
Brown (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-3) 1980
Featherstone (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-8) 2015; 4
The Epimetrics Group (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-27) 2016
Hair (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-15) 1998
Tricco (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-33) 2015; 13
Brown (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-4) 1993; 16
Coates (10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-5) 2015
References_xml – volume-title: Textuality and Tectonics: Troubling Social and Psychological Science
  year: 1994
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-7
  contributor:
    fullname: Curt
– volume: 20
  start-page: 206
  issue: 2
  year: 2005
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-6
  article-title: Exploring attitudes: the case for Q methodology
  publication-title: Health Education Research
  doi: 10.1093/her/cyg121
  contributor:
    fullname: Cross
– volume: 104
  start-page: 1086
  issue: 5
  year: 2009
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-39
  article-title: Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly
  publication-title: American Journal of Gastroenterology
  doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.118
  contributor:
    fullname: Yuan
– year: 2015
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-5
  article-title: Keynote address: rapid reviews and their impact on future directions for health technology assessment
  contributor:
    fullname: Coates
– volume-title: EPC Methods: An Exploration of Methods and Context for the Production of Rapid Reviews
  year: 2015
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-17
  article-title: AHRQ comparative effectiveness reviews
  contributor:
    fullname: Hartling
– volume: 70
  start-page: 61
  year: 2016
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-34
  article-title: An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods
  publication-title: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
  doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.012
  contributor:
    fullname: Tricco
– year: 2015
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-23
  article-title: Do we need a rapid review reporting guideline? Is PRISMA-P helpful when generating a RR protocol?
  contributor:
    fullname: Moher
– year: 2005
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-35
  article-title: Q methodology: a sneak preview
  contributor:
    fullname: van Exel
– volume: 30
  start-page: 430
  issue: 4
  year: 2014
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-22
  article-title: What’s in a name? Developing definitons for common health technology assessment product types of the International Network of Agencies for Health technology Assessment (INAHTA)
  publication-title: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  doi: 10.1017/S0266462314000543
  contributor:
    fullname: Merlin
– volume: 383
  start-page: 267
  issue: 9913
  year: 2014
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-11
  article-title: Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research
  publication-title: Lancet
  doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X
  contributor:
    fullname: Glasziou
– volume: 4
  start-page: e119
  issue: 5
  year: 2007
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-29
  article-title: Transparent development of the WHO rapid advice guidelines
  publication-title: PLoS Medicine
  doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040119
  contributor:
    fullname: Schünemann
– volume: 78
  start-page: 1037
  issue: 11
  year: 2008b
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-37
  article-title: Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice?
  publication-title: ANZ Journal of Surgery
  doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04730.x
  contributor:
    fullname: Watt
– volume: 21
  start-page: 1
  issue: 1
  year: 1972
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-1
  article-title: Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions
  publication-title: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
  doi: 10.1037/h0031930
  contributor:
    fullname: Ajzen
– volume: 5
  start-page: 132
  issue: 1
  year: 2016
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-24
  article-title: User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making
  publication-title: Systematic Reviews
  doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0306-5
  contributor:
    fullname: Peterson
– volume: 4
  start-page: 4
  year: 2015
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-30
  article-title: Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! … and systematic
  publication-title: Systematic Reviews
  doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-4
  contributor:
    fullname: Schünemann
– volume-title: An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis
  year: 2014
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-21
  doi: 10.4324/9781315788135
  contributor:
    fullname: Kline
– volume: 1
  start-page: 24
  issue: 1
  year: 2012
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-31
  article-title: Does journal endorsement of reporting guidelines influence the completeness of reporting of health research? A systematic review protocol
  publication-title: Systematic Reviews
  doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-24
  contributor:
    fullname: Shamseer
– year: 2015
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-32
  article-title: Systematic reviews vs. rapid reviews: What’s the difference?
  contributor:
    fullname: Tricco
– volume: 24
  start-page: 133
  issue: 2
  year: 2008a
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-36
  article-title: Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment
  publication-title: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080185
  contributor:
    fullname: Watt
– volume: 23
  start-page: 67
  issue: 2
  year: 2011
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-2
  article-title: Parents’ perceptions and attitudes on childhood obesity: a Q-methodology study
  publication-title: Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
  doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2010.00584.x
  contributor:
    fullname: Akhtar-Danesh
– year: 2016
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-27
  article-title: Q-Assessor
  contributor:
    fullname: The Epimetrics Group
– volume: 5
  start-page: 79
  issue: 1
  year: 2016
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-18
  article-title: Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines
  publication-title: Systematic Reviews
  doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9
  contributor:
    fullname: Kelly
– volume-title: Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation
  year: 2012
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-38
  doi: 10.4135/9781446251911
  contributor:
    fullname: Watts
– volume: 16
  start-page: 91
  issue: 3/4
  year: 1993
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-4
  article-title: A primer on Q methodology
  publication-title: Operant Subjectivity
  doi: 10.22488/okstate.93.100504
  contributor:
    fullname: Brown
– volume: 15
  start-page: 62
  year: 1969
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-9
  article-title: Zur Bestimmung der Anzahl interpretierbarer gemeinsamer Faktoren in Faktorenanalysen psychologischer Daten (The determination of the number of interpretable common factors in factor analysis of psychological data)
  publication-title: Diagnostica
  contributor:
    fullname: Fuerntratt
– volume: 25
  start-page: 415
  issue: 3
  year: 2009
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-13
  article-title: A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments
  publication-title: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  doi: 10.1017/S0266462309990067
  contributor:
    fullname: Hailey
– year: 2016
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-25
  article-title: Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri-food public health
  publication-title: Research Synthesis Methods
  doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1215
  contributor:
    fullname: Pham
– volume: 5
  start-page: 56
  issue: 1
  year: 2010
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-10
  article-title: Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews
  publication-title: Implementation Science
  doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
  contributor:
    fullname: Ganann
– volume: 1
  start-page: 10
  issue: 1
  year: 2012
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-19
  article-title: Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach
  publication-title: Systematic Reviews
  doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
  contributor:
    fullname: Khangura
– volume: 30
  start-page: 20
  issue: 1
  year: 2014
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-20
  article-title: Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment
  publication-title: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000664
  contributor:
    fullname: Khangura
– volume-title: Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science
  year: 1980
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-3
  contributor:
    fullname: Brown
– volume-title: Multivariate Data Analysis
  year: 1998
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-15
  contributor:
    fullname: Hair
– volume-title: Social Psychology: A Critical Agenda
  year: 1995
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-28
  contributor:
    fullname: Rogers
– volume: 4
  start-page: 50
  issue: 1
  year: 2015
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-8
  article-title: Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews
  publication-title: Systematic Reviews
  doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4
  contributor:
    fullname: Featherstone
– volume: 4
  start-page: 26
  issue: 1
  year: 2015
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-26
  article-title: Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
  publication-title: Systematic Reviews
  doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6
  contributor:
    fullname: Polisena
– volume: 10
  start-page: 397
  issue: 4
  year: 2012
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-16
  article-title: What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments
  publication-title: International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
  doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x
  contributor:
    fullname: Harker
– volume: 13
  start-page: 224
  issue: 1
  year: 2015
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-33
  article-title: A scoping review of rapid review methods
  publication-title: BMC Medicine
  doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
  contributor:
    fullname: Tricco
– volume: 1
  start-page: 28
  issue: 1
  year: 2012
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-12
  article-title: Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
  publication-title: Systematic Reviews
  doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28
  contributor:
    fullname: Gough
– volume: 16
  start-page: 651
  issue: 2
  year: 2000
  ident: 10.7717/peerj.2522/ref-14
  article-title: The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments
  publication-title: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  doi: 10.1017/S0266462300101205
  contributor:
    fullname: Hailey
SSID ssj0000826083
Score 2.2037508
Snippet Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use...
Background Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use...
BACKGROUNDRapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use...
SourceID doaj
pubmedcentral
proquest
gale
crossref
pubmed
SourceType Open Website
Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage e2522
SubjectTerms Analysis
Attitude
Attitudes
Decision making
Epidemiology
Evidence producer
Factor analysis
Health care
Health Policy
Opinion
Perceptions
Questions and answers
Rapid review
Research methodology
Reviews
Studies
Time factor
Viewpoint
SummonAdditionalLinks – databaseName: Directory of Open Access Journals
  dbid: DOA
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Nb9QwEB2hHhAXxDdpSzECiVOo49hxwq0gqgqpSEhU6s2y4wldJNLVJj3wG_jTjB1vuhEHLlz2sJ6Vkpmx50325Q3AG60LhcKVue1KnkuqaXmNSua1bRxXXmBThheFz79UZxfy86W63Bn1FThhkzzw5Lhjjl5RB9dR5lDx5GUYtaR5o7lrgtRXF09fLnaaqXgGE2omcDHpkdL16OM14ubHO6GEWFSgKNT_93G8U4-WXMmd4nP6AO4n1MhOpqt9CHewfwR3z9P_4o_hd1As9qtAYWaY5oSy4VdP6G5YDYyAKbuaiV7Mp7k6-c84iuo9wy0Rj9kxUAc8Dsz2nq1vWS9sjPzagW3seuVZEjFlgTb_nX1l0yDq-Ij-CVycfvr28SxPYxbyVmk-5h19WuraCuy6uvJlYxGdc7xViJVD6oca5NIRFHe6cN7VvvWis5pXdWEJ_pVPYa-_7vE5sLaysraa7OtC2lpbqdFbpDTwoikcZvB663qzntQ0DHUhIUAmBsiEAGXwIURltggK2PELyguT8sL8Ky8yeBliaibvzvvYnChZliW1oTqDt9Ei7GQKbWvTCwl0K0ETa2F5uLCkHdgul7d5Y9IJMJgwXjfKufEMXs3L4ZeB1dbj9Q3ZEPwlwEUgK4NnU5rNNy20JqQlZAZ6kYALryxX-tVV1AdXFBmpiv3_4cYDuEcQsYr0xeoQ9sbNDb4gGDa6o7jj_gDGVjI1
  priority: 102
  providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals
– databaseName: ProQuest Central
  dbid: BENPR
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwELZgKyEuFe8GChiBxCnU8SNOuKAWtaqQWgGiUm-RHU_aRSKbbtIDv4E_zdjxpo2QuOxhPZESz-sb58sMIe-0zhRwK1LTCJZKzGlpAUqmhSktU45DKfyHwien-fGZ_HKuzuOBWx9plZuYGAK1W9X-jHzPjysN7bHYp-4q9VOj_NvVOELjLtnimSiKBdk6ODz9-n06ZcEElyPIGPuS4n3pvQ5g_fMDV5zPMlFo2P9vWL6Vl-acyVtJ6OgB2Y7oke6P6n5I7kD7iNw7ie_HH5M_vnOxW3oqM4U4L5T2v1tEef2ypwhQ6eVE-KIuztdJf4WRVB8pbAh51AyeQuCgp6Z1tLthv9Ah8Gx7ujbd0tHYzJR6-vwF_UbHgdThqP4JOTs6_PH5OI3jFtJaaTakDf4arN4yaJoid6I0ANZaViuA3ALWRSUwaRGSW51ZZwtXO94YzfIiMwgDxVOyaFct7BBa50YWRqN8kUlTaCM1OANoDo6XmYWEvN1sfdWNXTUqrEa8gqqgoMorKCEHXiuThO-EHf5YrS-q6FgVA6ewwm8wsiC4YsKP4tKs1MyWvhVck5DXXqfVuLuTP1f7SgohsBzVCXkfJLxHo2prEz9MwEfxvbFmkrszSfTEer68sZsqRoK-urHbhLyZlv2Vnt3WwuoaZRAGI_BCsJWQZ6OZTQ_NtUbExWVC9MwAZ7syX2mXl6FPuELNSJU9__9tvSD3EQTmgaCY75LFsL6Glwi0BvsqetNf6TQtnQ
  priority: 102
  providerName: ProQuest
– databaseName: Scholars Portal Journals: Open Access
  dbid: M48
  link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1Nb9QwELVKkRAXxDeBAkYgccriJE6ccEEFUVVIi4TESr1ZdjxpF0F2SbYS_Q38aWYcJzTAgcse1hOtMh_2m-zLG8ZeKJXkkNosNk0mYolnWlxCLuPSVFbkLoUqoxeFlx-L45X8cJKf7LFxfmdwYP_P1o7mSa26r4sf3y_eYMEjfl3gT6lXW4DuyyJFJHGFXU3xRCRq1zLAfL8jI4YWXpEzJZlvBB3VoFT6x-Wzs8lL-P-9UV86qeYsykvH0tFNdiPgSX44JMAttgftbXZtGf4xv8N-kpaxWxO5mUOYIMr7ixZxX7_uOUJWfjZRwLgLE3fib35I1WsOI0WPmx2RChz03LSOb3_zYfjOM2973pnt2vEgb8qJUH_KP_FhRLV_eH-XrY7ef353HIcBDHGdK7GLG_w02M8l0DRl4bLKAFhrRZ0DFBawU6pASIsg3arEOlu62qWNUaIoE4PAMLvH9ttNCw8YrwsjS6PQvkykKZWRCpwBTBCXVomFiD0fXa-3g86Gxv6EAqR9gDQFKGJvKSqTBWlj-y823akOpaYFuBx7_gb3GoRbIqPhXEpUStiKxOGaiD2lmOrBu1OF68NcZlmGDaqK2EtvQVmHoa1NeFUBb4XUsmaWBzNLrM16vjzmjR5TW9PgXS_0JiL2bFqmK4nv1sLmHG0wRxGKIfyK2P0hzaabTpVCDJbKiKlZAs68Ml9p12deOTzHyMg8efhfzn7EriM6LDxzsThg-7vuHB4jAtvZJ768fgFK8jM0
  priority: 102
  providerName: Scholars Portal
Title Expediting evidence synthesis for healthcare decision-making: exploring attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews using Q methodology
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27761324
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1950255990
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1835512181
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC5068451
https://doaj.org/article/0ed5690f01764303973170970b94656f
Volume 4
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3fb9MwED5tQ0K8IH6TMYoRSDyldRI7Tnjbpo0JqdNATOpbZMeXrYimVdM97G_gn-bsJKURb7z4oblIie_O_i79_B3AR6UiibFJQl0lPBS0p4UZShFmOjdc2hjzxB0Unl6mF9fi60zO9kD2Z2E8ab8083H9azGu57eeW7lalJOeJza5mp5KnmZCRpN92Kftd6dE98svAWbCFa0UKT2KmqwQ1z_HMSENJ_2rqHBPYjHYh7xc_7-L8s6uNGRM7mxB50_gcYcd2XH7jE9hD-tn8HDa_Tv-HH473WI7d0Rmhl23UNbc14TxmnnDCJ6y2y3di9muu0648A2pPjPs6XhMbxyBwGLDdG3Z6i_3hW08y7Zha72aW9ZJmTJHnr9h31jbjtp_qH8B1-dnP04vwq7ZQlhKxTdhRaOm2i3CqspSm-Qa0RjDS4mYGqSqKEcuDAFyoyJjTWZLG1dakSsiTSAweQkH9bLG18DKVItMK7LPIqEzpYVCq5GCwcZ5ZDCAD_3UF6tWU6OgWsT5qvC-KpyvAjhxXtlaOB1s_8NyfVN00VBwtJLq-4rWFYJWPHGNuBTPFTe5E4KrAnjnfFq0s7vN5uJYiiRJqBhVAXzyFi6fybWl7o4l0Ks4ZayB5dHAkvKwHF7u46bo1oGmcE12vagbD-D99rK703HbalzekQ2BYIJdBLUCeNWG2fal-2gNQA0CcDArwyuUNF4lvEuSw_--8w08InSYeuZiegQHm_UdviUEtjEjeHBydnn1feS_YND4ZRbROBXZyOfiHwdTOXs
link.rule.ids 230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,21388,24318,27924,27925,33744,33745,43805,53791,53793,74302
linkProvider National Library of Medicine
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwELZgKwEXxJtAoUYgcQp1Ho4TLqhFrRboVoBaqTfLjiftIpFdNtsDv4E_zYzjTRshcdnDeiIlnoc_O1--YeyNUomE1GaxaTIR57imxSXIPC5NZYV0KVQZfSg8Oy6mp_nnM3kWDty6QKvc1ERfqN2ipjPyXWpX6uWxxIflr5i6RtHb1dBC4ybbIuV0OWFb-wfHX78Ppyy4wBUIMnpdUrwvtbsEWP14l8o0Ha1EXrD_37J8bV0acyavLUKH99jdgB75Xu_u--wGtA_YrVl4P_6Q_SHlYjcnKjOH0C-Ud79bRHndvOMIUPnFQPjiLvTXiX_6llTvOWwIedysiULgoOOmdXx5xX7ha8-z7fjKLOeOBzFTTvT5c_6N9w2p_VH9I3Z6eHDycRqHdgtxLZVYxw3-Gty9JdA0ZeGyygBYa0UtAQoLuC-qQOQWIblViXW2dLVLG6NEUSYGYWD2mE3aRQtPGa8Lk5dGoX2Z5KZUJlfgDGA4uLRKLETs9Wbq9bJX1dC4GyEHae8gTQ6K2D55ZbAgJWz_x2J1rkNiaQFO4g6_wcqC4Epk1IpLiUoJW5EUXBOxHfKp7md3yGe9J_Msy3A7qiL21ltQRqNraxM-TMBHIW2skeX2yBIzsR4Pb-JGh0rQ6au4jdirYZiuJHZbC4tLtEEYjMALwVbEnvRhNjx0qhQirjSPmBoF4GhWxiPt_MLrhEv0TC6TZ_-_rR12e3oyO9JHn46_PGd3EBAWnqxYbLPJenUJLxB0re3LkFl_ASVRMIU
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfV1Lb9QwEB7BVqq4IN4ECjUCiVOo83CccEEtdFUeXRVEpd4sO560i0R22WwP_Ab-NGPHmzZC4rKH9URKPK9vnC8zAK-kTASmJot1k_E4p5wWlyjyuNSV4cKmWGXuQ-HjWXF0mn86E2eB_9QFWuUmJvpAbRe1OyPfc-NKfXssvtcEWsTJh-m75a_YTZByb1rDOI2bsEVZkacT2Do4nJ18G05cKNkVBDj6HqV0j3Jvibj68SYVaTrKSr55_78h-lqOGvMnryWk6R24HZAk2-9VfxduYHsPto_Du_L78Md1MbZzR2tmGGaHsu53S4ivm3eMwCq7GMhfzIZZO_FPP57qLcMNOY_ptaMTWOyYbi1bXjFh2Npzbju20su5ZaGxKXNU-nP2lfXDqf2x_QM4nR5-f38Uh9ELcS0kX8cN_Wqq5BJsmrKwWaURjTG8FoiFQaqRKuS5IXhuZGKsKW1t00ZLXpSJJkiYPYRJu2jxMbC60HmpJcmXSa5LqXOJViOZhk2rxGAELzdbr5Z9hw1FlYlTkPIKUk5BERw4rQwSriu2_2OxOlfByRRHK6jabyjKENDimRvLJXklualcW7gmgl2nU9Xv7uDbal_kWZZRaSojeO0lnHeTamsdPlKgR3F9skaSOyNJ8sp6vLyxGxWiQqeubDiCF8Oyu9Ix3VpcXJIMQWICYQS8InjUm9nw0KmUhL7SPAI5MsDRroxX2vmF7xkuSDO5SJ78_7Z2YZucSn35OPv8FG4RNiw8b7HYgcl6dYnPCH-tzfPgWH8BIrY0sg
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Expediting+evidence+synthesis+for+healthcare+decision-making%3A+exploring+attitudes+and+perceptions+towards+rapid+reviews+using+Q+methodology&rft.jtitle=PeerJ+%28San+Francisco%2C+CA%29&rft.au=Kelly%2C+Shannon+E.&rft.au=Moher%2C+David&rft.au=Clifford%2C+Tammy+J.&rft.date=2016-10-06&rft.issn=2167-8359&rft.eissn=2167-8359&rft.volume=4&rft.spage=e2522&rft_id=info:doi/10.7717%2Fpeerj.2522&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_7717_peerj_2522
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2167-8359&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2167-8359&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2167-8359&client=summon