Rapid Review
Engagement with Knowledge Users
Rapid reviews are usually carried out in response to a specific request from a decision-maker, who plays a crucial role in formulating the question, establishing the review's scope, and determining the timeline. Early and ongoing involvement of the requester and other relevant stakeholders is essential to grasp their needs, understand the intended purpose of the review, and clarify the expected timeline and outcomes. (King et al., 2022)
The STARR (SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews) tool developed by researchers in the University of Sheffield helps authors in planning approaches to rapid reviews and obtaining structured input from knowledge users through targeted questions. This practical decision tool is designed to help select an appropriate rapid review approach. Acknowledging the difficulties in collaboration between rapid review producers and policy-makers, the tool seeks to gain validation by fostering consensus between these two groups through the use of the Delphi method.
Define the Question
Before you start, it is important to have a well-constructed question. Frameworks can be used to both develop your research question and your search strategy. There are many ways of framing questions depending on the topic, discipline, or type of questions some of these frameworks are shown below.
| Type of Research Question | Framework | Disciplines |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical questions | PICO (variants: PIO, PICOT, PICOS) | Health |
| Quantitative | PEO, PICO (variants: PIO, PICOT, PICOS), PCC | Health; Social Sciences; Business and Policy; Environment |
| Qualitative | PEO, PICo, CLIP, ECLIPSE, PCC, SPICE, SPIDER, | Social Sciences; Management; Health |
| Mixed methods | PCC, SPICE, SPIDER | Health; Social Sciences |
| Methodological or theoretical | BeHEMoTH | Health |
Adapted from Advanced literature search and systematic reviews guide from City University of London
This list is not exhaustive, the University of Maryland list more frameworks Frameworks for research questions
Select a Framework
The PICO question framework is very popular and is effective at answering quantitative questions particularly for health disciplines.
Example of a PICO question: In adult patients undergoing surgery, does music therapy compared to no music therapy reduce preoperative anxiety?
| PICO element | Definition | Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| P (Patient / Population / Problem) | Describe your patient, population or problem | Adult patients undergoing surgery |
| I (Intervention / Indicator) | What intervention is being considered? | Music therapy |
| C (Comparison / Control) | What is your comparison or control? | No music therapy or standard care |
| O (Outcome) | What outcome are you looking for? | Reduced anxiety levels |
Variations to PICO
PIO - Use when there is no Comparison or Control
PICOS - S stands for study design. Use this framework if you are only interested in examining specific designs of study.
PICOT - T stands for timeframe. Use this framework if your outcomes need to be measured in a certain amount of time, e.g. 24 hours after surgery.
PICOC - C stands for context. Use this framework if you are focussing on a particular organisation or circumstances or scenario
For quantitative and qualitative questions evaluating experiences, and meaningfulness.
Example of a PEO question: What are the experiences of parents caring for a child with autism?
| PEO element | Definition | Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| P (Patient / Population / Problem) | Describe your patient, population or problem | Parents of children with autism |
| E (Exposure) | What is the issue you are interested in? | Caring for a child with autism |
| O (Outcomes or themes) | What (in relation to the issue) do you want to examine? | Experiences and perceptions |
Used for questions relating to cost effectiveness, economic evaluations, and service improvements.
Example of a ECLIPSE Question: What is the impact of introducing an online appointment booking system on patient satisfaction in an Irish general practice?
| ECLIPSE element | Definition | Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| E (Expectation) | Purpose of the study - what are you trying to achieve? | To improve patient satisfaction |
| C (Client group) | Who is the information needed for? | Patients at a general practice |
| L (Location) | Where is the client group based? | General practice clinic in Ireland |
| I (Impact) | If your research is looking for service improvement, what is it? How is it measured? | Introduction of an online appointment booking system |
| P (Professionals) | What professional staff are involved? | Administrative and reception staff |
| SE (Service) | For which service are you looking for information? | Appointment scheduling service |
Framework used for qualitative questions evaluating experiences and meaningfulness.
Example of a Spider Question: How do undergraduate nursing students perceive simulation-based learning in their clinical education?
| SPIDER element | Definition | Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| S (Sample) | Describe the group you are focussing on |
Undergraduate nursing students |
| PI (Phenomenon of interest) | The behaviour or experience your research is examining | Perceptions of simulation-based learning |
| D (Design) | How was the research carried out? | Qualitative interviews or focus groups |
| E (Evaluation) | Which outcome are you measuring? | Perceived value, realism, or engagement |
| R (Research type) | Qualitative? Quantitative? Or mixed methods? | Qualitative Research |
Used for qualitative questions evaluating experiences and meaningfulness.
Example of a SPICE question: In rural healthcare settings, how do telehealth consultations compared to in-person consultations affect patient satisfaction from the perspective of rural patients?
| SPICE element | Definition | Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| S (Setting) | Where is the study set? | Rural healthcare settings |
| P (Population / Perspective) | From which population / perspective is the study done? | Patients living in rural areas |
| I (Intervention) | Describe the intervention being studied | Telehealth consultations |
| C (Comparison) | Is the intervention being compared with another? | In-person consultations |
| E (Evaluation) | How well did the intervention work? | Patient satisfaction |
The BeHEMoTh framework is used for theory-based evidence in health and social sciences. It’s particularly helpful when you're looking for literature on theoretical models or conceptual frameworks.
Example of BeHEMoTh Question: What behavioural theories are used to explain uptake of national cancer screening programmes, excluding purely biomedical or technical evaluations?
| BeHEMoTH element | Definition | Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| Be (Behaviour of interest) | Way population or patient interacts with health context, for example access for a service, compliance, attitude to policy. | Uptake and participation in cancer screening programmes |
| H (Health Context) | i.e.: the service, policy, programme or intervention | National cancer screening programmes |
| E (Exclusions) | To exclude non-theoretical/technical models (depends on volume) | Exclude technical screening protocols, biomedical studies without theoretical framing |
| MoTH (Model or Theories) | Operationalized as a generic ‘model* or theor* or concept* or framework*’ strategy together with named models or theories if required | Behavioural or social theories explaining screening uptake |
Check the Topic / Scoping Search
Once you have defined your review question, you should begin by searching for previously conducted reviews in your area of interest.
This has three main purposes:
1. Verify that your research question has not already been answered recently.
2. Verify that there are no other review protocols registered with researchers already asking the same question
3. Identify related systematic reviews so that you can review their reference lists to scope out primary studies that were used.
Here are some databases that would be useful to search
The Cochrane Collaboration is a not-for-profit organisation with collaborators from over 120 countries working together to promote evidence-informed health decision-making by producing high-quality, relevant, accessible systematic reviews and other synthesised research evidence.
The Campbell Collaboration maintains and disseminates systematic reviews in education, crime and justice, social welfare, and international development.
PROSPERO is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care. Key features from the review protocol are recorded and maintained as a permanent record. PROSPERO aims to provide a comprehensive listing of systematic reviews registered at inception to help avoid unplanned duplication and enable comparison of reported review methods with what was planned in the protocol.
Clinical Queries offers a user-friendly approach to evidence-based searching on the Medline database. This tool uses predefined filters to help you quickly refine searches on clinical or disease-specific topics.
Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)
The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) contains details of systematic reviews that evaluate the effects of healthcare interventions and the delivery and organisation of health services. DARE also contains reviews of the wider determinants of health such as housing, transport, and social care where these impact directly on health, or have the potential to impact on health.
Epistemonikos is a collaborative, multilingual database of health evidence. It is the largest source of systematic reviews relevant for health-decision making, and a large source of other types of scientific evidence.
JBI Evidence Synthesis seeks to disseminate rigorous, high-quality research that provides the best available evidence to inform policy and practice through the science and conduct of systematic and scoping reviews.
Set Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria
When you formulate a research question you also need to consider your inclusion and exclusion criteria. These are a list of pre-defined characteristics the literature must have, if they are to be included in a study, or must not have to be excluded from a study.
Common inclusion / exclusion criteria include time period, language, geographic location, age range, animal or human studies, setting, type of study.
Cochranes updated guidance on Rapid Review states that "to ensure rapid reviews are timely, various restrictions can be applied to eligibility criteria " and further outlined in the table below.
| 3 Clearly define the eligibility criteria, including any restrictions or limits: |
|---|
| 3.1 Limit the number of interventions and comparators |
| 3.2 Limit the number of outcomes, focusing on those most important for decision making |
| 3.3 Consider restriction of the search date of the evidence base, with clinical or methodological justification provided |
| 3.4 Limit the setting, with clinical or methodological justification provided |
| 3.5 Limit the publication language to English at study selection, with other languages added when relevant |
| 3.6 Prioritise the inclusion of high quality study designs relevant to the review question or objective |
- Last Updated: Aug 20, 2025 8:52 AM
- URL: https://libguides.ittralee.ie/rapidreview
- Print Page