Resumo
É reconhecido amplamente que as intervenções de saúde sustentadas pelas evidências de pesquisa serão mais efetivas do que aquelas que não são. Entretanto, na formulação de políticas de saúde, com seus processos decisórios não lineares e motivações políticas concorrentes, o uso de evidências científicas para informar a tomada de decisão não é um processo fácil. As barreiras geralmente citadas incluem acesso limitado a pesquisas de alta qualidade e baixa relevância e oportunidade de pesquisas, enquanto a maior colaboração e relação entre pesquisadores e tomadores de decisão foram citadas como um importante facilitador para o uso das evidências científicas. Programas de respostas rápidas foram iniciados para superar essas barreiras e facilitar o uso da evidência científica, assegurando a provisão do acesso a resultados de pesquisas relevantes e oportunas e através do trabalho compartilhado entre pesquisadores e gestores. Um programa normalmente funciona para prover sínteses de evidências científicas em um curto período de tempo. Revisões rápidas da literatura são produtos-chave. Atualmente há uma grande variação em como tais produtos são desenvolvidos e poucas evidências empíricas sobre como atalhos no método podem impactar nos achados das revisões. Enquanto programas de resposta rápida e seus produtos são potencialmente um mecanismo importante para apoiar as políticas de saúde informadas por evidências, essas estratégias ainda precisam ser testadas empiricamente.
Referências
1. Abrami PC, Borokhovski E, Bernard RM, Wade CA, Tamim R, Persson T, et al. Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence.
Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate & Practice. 2010;6:371-89.
2. Bridgman P, Davis G. The Australian Policy Handbook. New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin; 2004.
3. Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evidence-based public health policy. American Journal of Public Health. 2009[access 28 mar
2016];99:1576-83. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724448/pdf/1576.pdf
4. Brownson RC, Royer C, Ewing R, McBride TD. Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine. 2006[access 28 mar 2016];30:164-72Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7315475_Researchers_and_Policymakers_Travelers_in_Parallel_Universes
5. Buse K, Mays N, Walt G. Making health policy. 2.ed. Berkshire: Open University: McGraw-Hill; 2012.
6. Cameron A, Watt A, Lathlean T, Sturm L. Rapid review versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in Health
Technology Assessment. (ASERNIP-S Report , 60). Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S; 2007.
7. Carter R, Vos T, Moodie M, Haby M, Magnus A, Mihalopoulos C. Priority setting in health: origins, description and application of the Australian
Assessing Cost-Effectiveness initiative. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. 2008;8:593-617.
8. Clark R, Haby M. Evidence-based policy: why and how. In: Carey G, Landvogt K, Barraket J, editors. Creating and implementing public policy: cross-
sectoral debates. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. London: Policy Press;2015. chap.7.
9. Coffman J. Evaluation based on theories of the policy process. The Evaluation Exchange. 2007[access 28 mar 2016];13:6-7. Available at:
http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/original/application/6bdf92c3d7e970e7270588109e23b678.pdf
10. Colebatch HK. Policy. 2.ed. Buckingham: Open University ; 2002.
11. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science. 2010[access
28 mar 2016];5:56.Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914085/ pdf/1748-5908-5-56.pdf
12. Haby M, Bowen S. Making decisions about interventions. A guide for evidence-informed policy and practice. Melbourne: Prevention and
Population Health Branch; 2010. [access 28 mar 2016] Available at: https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/population-health-
systems/evidence-and-evaluation/guidelines-on-evidence-and-evaluation
13. Haby M, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for
evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid overview. Implementation Science. 2015; (submitted December).
14. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. Designing a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision making in
the Americas Region: using the best available evidence and case studies. Implementation Science. 2016; (submitted Jan 2016).
15. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviewsof the research evidence for
evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Implementation Science. 2016; (submitted Jan 2016).
16. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. EPC methods: an exploration of methods and context for the
production of rapid reviews: research white paper. (AHRQ Publication,15-EHC008-EF). Rockville (MD); 2015. [access 28 mar 2016] Available at:
www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
17. Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E, Anderson J, Belinson S, Berliner E, et al. A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific
decision-making contexts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015. [access 28 mar 2016] Available at: http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-
4356%2815%2900372-8/pdf
18. Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. Journal of Health
Services Research &Policy. 2002;7:239-44.
19. Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. 2. ed. Harlow: Longman Classics; 2010.
20. Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-
making. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005;10 Suppl 1:35-48.
21. Lavis JN, Hammill AC, Gildiner A, McDonagh RJ, Wilson MG, Ross SE, et al. A systematic review of the factors that influence the use of research
evidence by public policymakers: final report submitted to the Canadian Population Health Initiative. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster
University Program in Policy Decision-Making; 2005.
22. Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS
One. 2013. [access 28 mar 2016];8:e77404. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3813708/pdf/pone.0077404.pdf
23. Moodie R. Where different worlds collide: expanding the influence of research and researchers on policy. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2009.
[access 28 mar 2016];30(Suppl 1):S33-S7. Available at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/journal/v30/nS1/pdf/jphp200853a.pdf
24. Nutley S. Bridging the policy/research divide. Reflections and lessons from the UK. In: Facing the Future: Engaging stakeholders and citizens in
developingpublic policy. National Institute of Governance Conference; 2003 April 23-24; Canberra, Australia; 2003. [access 28 mar 2016] . Available
at: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/guestlectures/nutley-apr03. 2003.
25. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC
Health Services Research. 2014. [access 28 mar 2016];14:2. Available at: http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-
14-2
26. Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes:
systematic review. PLoS One. 2011. [access 28 mar 2016];6:e21704. Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021704
27. Polisena J, Garritty C, Umscheid CA, Kamel C, Samra K, Smith J, et al. Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda.
Systematic Reviews. 2015. [access 28 mar 2016];4:111. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4583747/
pdf/13643_2015_Article_111.pdf
28. Polisena J, Garrity C, Kamel C, Stevens A, Abou-Setta AM. Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive
analysis of processes and methods. Systematic Reviews. 2015. [access 28 mar 2016];4:26. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407715/pdf/13643_2015_Article_22.pdf
29. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996. [access 28 mar 2016];312:71-2. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2349778/pdf/bmj00524-0009.pdf
30. Seavey J, McGrath R, Aytur S. Health policy analysis:framework and tools for success. New York, NY: Springer;2014.
31. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the
methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62:1013-20.
32. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine. 2015[access 28 mar
2016];13:224. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574114/pdf/12916_2015_Article_465.pdf
33. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, Hutton B, Moher D, Sherifali D, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid
review methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016;70:61-67.
34. Van de Velde S, De Buck E, Dieltjens T, Aertgeerts B. Medicinal use of potato-derived products: conclusions of a rapid versus full systematic review.
Phytotherapy Research. 2011;25:787-8.
35. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 2008;78:1037-40.
36. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods
and practice in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2008;24:133-9.
37. WHO- World Health Organization. Knowledge translation framework for ageing and health. Geneva: Department of Ageing and Life-Course;2012.
[access 28 mar 2016] Available at: http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/knowledge_translation.pdf?ua=1
Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate & Practice. 2010;6:371-89.
2. Bridgman P, Davis G. The Australian Policy Handbook. New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin; 2004.
3. Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evidence-based public health policy. American Journal of Public Health. 2009[access 28 mar
2016];99:1576-83. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724448/pdf/1576.pdf
4. Brownson RC, Royer C, Ewing R, McBride TD. Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine. 2006[access 28 mar 2016];30:164-72Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7315475_Researchers_and_Policymakers_Travelers_in_Parallel_Universes
5. Buse K, Mays N, Walt G. Making health policy. 2.ed. Berkshire: Open University: McGraw-Hill; 2012.
6. Cameron A, Watt A, Lathlean T, Sturm L. Rapid review versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in Health
Technology Assessment. (ASERNIP-S Report , 60). Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S; 2007.
7. Carter R, Vos T, Moodie M, Haby M, Magnus A, Mihalopoulos C. Priority setting in health: origins, description and application of the Australian
Assessing Cost-Effectiveness initiative. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. 2008;8:593-617.
8. Clark R, Haby M. Evidence-based policy: why and how. In: Carey G, Landvogt K, Barraket J, editors. Creating and implementing public policy: cross-
sectoral debates. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. London: Policy Press;2015. chap.7.
9. Coffman J. Evaluation based on theories of the policy process. The Evaluation Exchange. 2007[access 28 mar 2016];13:6-7. Available at:
http://www.hfrp.org/var/hfrp/storage/original/application/6bdf92c3d7e970e7270588109e23b678.pdf
10. Colebatch HK. Policy. 2.ed. Buckingham: Open University ; 2002.
11. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science. 2010[access
28 mar 2016];5:56.Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914085/ pdf/1748-5908-5-56.pdf
12. Haby M, Bowen S. Making decisions about interventions. A guide for evidence-informed policy and practice. Melbourne: Prevention and
Population Health Branch; 2010. [access 28 mar 2016] Available at: https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/population-health-
systems/evidence-and-evaluation/guidelines-on-evidence-and-evaluation
13. Haby M, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for
evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid overview. Implementation Science. 2015; (submitted December).
14. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. Designing a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision making in
the Americas Region: using the best available evidence and case studies. Implementation Science. 2016; (submitted Jan 2016).
15. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviewsof the research evidence for
evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Implementation Science. 2016; (submitted Jan 2016).
16. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. EPC methods: an exploration of methods and context for the
production of rapid reviews: research white paper. (AHRQ Publication,15-EHC008-EF). Rockville (MD); 2015. [access 28 mar 2016] Available at:
www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
17. Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E, Anderson J, Belinson S, Berliner E, et al. A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific
decision-making contexts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015. [access 28 mar 2016] Available at: http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-
4356%2815%2900372-8/pdf
18. Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. Journal of Health
Services Research &Policy. 2002;7:239-44.
19. Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. 2. ed. Harlow: Longman Classics; 2010.
20. Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-
making. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 2005;10 Suppl 1:35-48.
21. Lavis JN, Hammill AC, Gildiner A, McDonagh RJ, Wilson MG, Ross SE, et al. A systematic review of the factors that influence the use of research
evidence by public policymakers: final report submitted to the Canadian Population Health Initiative. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster
University Program in Policy Decision-Making; 2005.
22. Liverani M, Hawkins B, Parkhurst JO. Political and institutional influences on the use of evidence in public health policy. A systematic review. PLoS
One. 2013. [access 28 mar 2016];8:e77404. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3813708/pdf/pone.0077404.pdf
23. Moodie R. Where different worlds collide: expanding the influence of research and researchers on policy. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2009.
[access 28 mar 2016];30(Suppl 1):S33-S7. Available at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/journal/v30/nS1/pdf/jphp200853a.pdf
24. Nutley S. Bridging the policy/research divide. Reflections and lessons from the UK. In: Facing the Future: Engaging stakeholders and citizens in
developingpublic policy. National Institute of Governance Conference; 2003 April 23-24; Canberra, Australia; 2003. [access 28 mar 2016] . Available
at: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/guestlectures/nutley-apr03. 2003.
25. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC
Health Services Research. 2014. [access 28 mar 2016];14:2. Available at: http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6963-
14-2
26. Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes:
systematic review. PLoS One. 2011. [access 28 mar 2016];6:e21704. Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021704
27. Polisena J, Garritty C, Umscheid CA, Kamel C, Samra K, Smith J, et al. Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda.
Systematic Reviews. 2015. [access 28 mar 2016];4:111. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4583747/
pdf/13643_2015_Article_111.pdf
28. Polisena J, Garrity C, Kamel C, Stevens A, Abou-Setta AM. Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive
analysis of processes and methods. Systematic Reviews. 2015. [access 28 mar 2016];4:26. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407715/pdf/13643_2015_Article_22.pdf
29. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996. [access 28 mar 2016];312:71-2. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2349778/pdf/bmj00524-0009.pdf
30. Seavey J, McGrath R, Aytur S. Health policy analysis:framework and tools for success. New York, NY: Springer;2014.
31. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the
methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62:1013-20.
32. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine. 2015[access 28 mar
2016];13:224. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574114/pdf/12916_2015_Article_465.pdf
33. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, Hutton B, Moher D, Sherifali D, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid
review methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016;70:61-67.
34. Van de Velde S, De Buck E, Dieltjens T, Aertgeerts B. Medicinal use of potato-derived products: conclusions of a rapid versus full systematic review.
Phytotherapy Research. 2011;25:787-8.
35. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 2008;78:1037-40.
36. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods
and practice in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2008;24:133-9.
37. WHO- World Health Organization. Knowledge translation framework for ageing and health. Geneva: Department of Ageing and Life-Course;2012.
[access 28 mar 2016] Available at: http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/knowledge_translation.pdf?ua=1
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2016 Michelle M. Haby, Rachel Clark
Downloads
Não há dados estatísticos.
Métricas
Carregando Métricas ...