Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe perceptions of providing, and using rapid evidence, to support decision making by two national bodies (one public health policy and one front-line clinical practice) during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative study (March-August 2020): 25 semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. SETTING: Data were obtained as part of an evaluation of two Irish national projects; the Irish COVID-19 Evidence for General Practitioners project (General Practice (GP) project) which provided relevant evidence to address clinical questions posed by GPs; and the COVID-19 Evidence Synthesis Team (Health Policy project) which produced rapid evidence products at the request of the National Public Health Emergency Team. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 14 evidence providers (EPs: generated and disseminated rapid evidence) and 11 service ssers (SUs: GPs and policy-makers, who used the evidence). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participant perceptions. RESULTS: The Policy Project comprised 27 EPs, producing 30 reports across 1432 person-work-days. The GP project comprised 10 members from 3 organisations, meeting 49 times and posting evidence-based answers to 126 questions. Four unique themes were generated. 'The Work' highlighted that a structured but flexible organisational approach to producing evidence was essential. Ensuring quality of evidence products was challenging, particularly in the context of absent or poor-quality evidence. 'The Use' highlighted that rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. Trust and credibility of EPs were key, however, communication difficulties were highlighted by SUs (eg, website functionality). 'The Team' emphasised that a highly skilled team, working collaboratively, is essential to meeting the substantial workload demands and tight turnaround time. 'The Future' highlighted that investing in resources, planning and embedding evidence synthesis support, is crucial to national emergency preparedness. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. The credibility of EPs, a close relationship with SUs and having a highly skilled and adaptable team to meet the workload demands were identified as key strengths that optimised the utilisation of rapid evidence. ETHICS APPROVAL: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee for COVID-19-related Research, Ireland.

Evaluation of MCQs from MOOCs for common item writing flaws.

OBJECTIVE: There is a dearth of research into the quality of assessments based on Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) items in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). This dataset was generated to determine whether MCQ item writing flaws existed in a selection of MOOC assessments, and to evaluate their prevalence if so. Hence, researchers reviewed MCQs from a sample of MOOCs, using an evaluation protocol derived from the medical health education literature, which has an extensive evidence-base with regard to writing quality MCQ items. DATA DESCRIPTION: This dataset was collated from MCQ items in 18 MOOCs in the areas of medical health education, life sciences and computer science. Two researchers critically reviewed 204 questions using an evidence-based evaluation protocol. In the data presented, 50% of the MCQs (112) have one or more item writing flaw, while 28% of MCQs (57) contain two or more flaws. Thus, a majority of the MCQs in the dataset violate item-writing guidelines, which mirrors findings of previous research that examined rates of flaws in MCQs in traditional formal educational contexts.

COPD in primary care settings in Ireland: stories from usual care.

The aim of the PRINCE study was to determine the effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for those living with COPD in primary care in Ireland. This qualitative element of the larger PRINCE trial aims to describe the constituents of 'usual care' for patients allocated to the control arm of the study. A descriptive qualitative study was used to explore the constituents of usual care. A convenience sample of participants (n=20) allocated to the usual care group were interviewed. Three main themes arose from the study: experiences of having and managing COPD, lifestyle advice, and factors that helped or hindered self-management. Usual care left many people grappling in the dark trying to manage their COPD. It was found that usual care was not at its optimum for people with COPD in the control arm of the PRINCE study.