Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:02:33.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptive Evolution in Rapid Assessments: A 25-Year Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

Paula Corabian ,
Bing Guo Open the ORCID record for Bing Guo [Opens in a new window] ,
Carmen Moga  and
N. Ann Scott
Paula Corabian*
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Bing Guo
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Carmen Moga
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada
N. Ann Scott
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Paula Corabian, E-mail: pcorabian@ihe.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

This article retrospectively examines the evolution of rapid assessments (RAs) produced by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Program at the Institute of Health Economics over its 25-year relationship with a single requester, the Alberta Health Ministry (AHM).

Methods

The number, types, and methodological attributes of RAs produced over the past 25 years were reviewed. The reasons for developmental changes in RA processes and products over time were charted to document the push–pull tension between AHM needs and the HTA Program's drive to meet those needs while responding to changing methodological benchmarks.

Results

The review demonstrated the dynamic relationship required for HTA researchers to meet requester needs while adhering to good HTA practice. The longstanding symbiotic relationship between the HTA Program and the AHM initially led to increased diversity in RA types, followed by controlled extinction of the less fit (useful) “transition species.” Adaptations in RA methodology were mainly driven by changes in best practice standards, requester needs, the healthcare environment, and staff expertise and technology.

Conclusions

RAs are a useful component of HTA programs. To remain relevant and useful, RAs need to evolve according to need within the constraints of HTA best practice.

Keywords

Rapid assessmentHealth technology assessmentSystematic reviewRapid responseInformation dissemination
Type
Perspective
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , 2019 , pp. 77 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Hailey, D, Corabian, P, Harstall, C, Schneider, W (2000) The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16, 651–656.Google Scholar
2.Khangura, S, Polisena, J, Farrah, K, Kamel, C (2014) Rapid review: An emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 30, 20–27.Google Scholar
3.Khangura, S, Konnyu, K, Cushman, R, Grimshaw, J, Moher, D (2012) Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev 1, 10.Google Scholar
4.Polisena, J, Garritty, C, Kamel, C, Stevens, A, Abou-Setta, AM (2015) Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: A descriptive analysis of processes and methods. Syst Rev 4, 26.Google Scholar
5.Kelly, SE, Moher, D, Clifford, TJ (2016) Expediting evidence synthesis for healthcare decision-making: Exploring attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews using Q methodology. Peer J 4, e2522. eCollection 2016.10.7717/peerj.2522Google Scholar
6.Hartling, L, Guise, JM, Kato, E, et al. A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. J Clin Epidemiol 68, 1451–1462.Google Scholar
7.Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. (2008) Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24, 133–139.Google Scholar
8.Tricco, AC, Zarin, W, Antony, J, et al. (2016) An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol 70, 61–67.Google Scholar
9.Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, et al. (2002) Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working Group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18, 361–422.10.1017/S0266462302000284Google Scholar
10.Borowski, HZ, Brehaut, J, Hailey, D. (2007) Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: the Alberta model. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23, 155–161.Google Scholar