A content analysis of two african medical schools' antibiotic stewardship curricula.

Background: Antibiotics are precious substances that have saved millions of lives since their discovery, resulting in significant advances in modern medicine. However, antibiotic resistance and a slowdown in the discovery of new antibiotics with novel mechanisms of action are affecting the sustainability of antibiotics. The objective of this study was to describe the content of South African and Nigerian medical students' curricula with respect to prudent antimicrobial prescribing. Methods: A content analysis framework was used to identify, describe, and count the keywords, key phrases, and sentences relevant to the teaching of prudent antimicrobial prescribing in the complete curricula content of two African countries' medical schools. The courses are taught in the Graduate Entry Medical Programme (GEMP) curriculum (years 3-6) of the South African medical school and years 4-6 of the Nigerian medical school. The frequency of keywords/key phrases relevant to prudent antibiotic prescribing such as antimicrobial stewardship, mechanisms of bacterial resistance, and principles of antibiotic therapy was determined. Results: The two curricula reviewed were found to be different. While the South African medical school uses an integrated curriculum in the GEMP (a stream where candidates with undergraduate degrees are enrolled into the 3rd year of medical school and spend 4 years), the Nigerian medical school operates a traditional (discipline based) curriculum from MBBS 1-6. A greater number of keywords and key phrases were found in the South African curriculum compared to the Nigerian curriculum in relation to prudent antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship. The key phrase "antimicrobial stewardship" or "antibiotic stewardship" was absent in the Nigerian curriculum but appeared four times in the South African curriculum. Discussion: The findings of this curriculum review suggest a need for revision of the medical curricula of the two countries, to one that will better prepare learners for antimicrobial stewardship.

Practical guide to undertaking scoping reviews for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Scoping reviews are a valuable evidence synthesis methodology. They can be used to map the evidence related to any topic to allow examination of practice, methods, policy and where (and how) future research could be undertaken. As such, they are a useful form of evidence synthesis for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to review a broad range of evidence sources. COMMENT: This commentary presents the most comprehensive and up to date methodology for scoping reviews published by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). This approach builds upon two older approaches by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac. To assist reviewers working in the field of pharmacy with planning and conducting scoping reviews, this paper describes how to undertake scoping reviews from inception to publication with specific examples related to pharmacy topics. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The JBI scoping review methodology is a valuable evidence synthesis approach to the field of pharmacy and therapeutics. This approach can assist pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to gain an understanding of the extant literature, to identify gaps, to explore concepts, characteristics and to examine current practice.

A phenomenographic study exploring the conceptions of stakeholders on their teaching and learning roles in nursing education.

BACKGROUND: Nursing education involves a number of stakeholders in the teaching and learning process, and these are student nurses, lecturers, clinical instructors and nurses. The role that each of these parties play in the teaching and learning process is dependent on each other and is key to the development of competence among student nurses. However, there is scanty literature on the discourse of how these stakeholders conceptualise their roles to maximise student learning. The objective of this study was to explore the conceptions of stakeholders on their teaching and learning roles in nursing education. METHODS: Thirty-eight semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with nursing students, lecturers, clinical educators at a Namibian nursing college and nurses at teaching hospitals. Phenomenographic data analysis approach was applied. RESULTS: Four conceptions were constructed that described the level of involvement of the different parties in teaching and learning. These were initiating, supporting, becoming part of and owning the teaching and learning role. Three dimensions of variation marked the differences among the conceptions: responsibility and accountability, priorities and level of collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: The parties involved in the teaching and learning in nursing education have qualitatively different understating of their roles and those of others. There is a pattern transcending from being at the periphery of teaching and learning to taking ownership of teaching and learning. And a movement from limited responsibility and collaboration to that of being responsible, accountable and high level of collaboration in the teaching and learning of nursing students. The conceptions in this study add more ways of enhancing collaboration between theoretical and clinical sites in nursing education, by ensuring that those involved are aware of their role and that of others and work collaboratively at the micro-level.

Nursing students' conceptions of competence and the learning processes that support the development of competence: a phenomenographic study.

The development of competence among student nurses is important to nurse educators, nursing regulatory bodies, employers and patients. Several teaching and learning strategies support the development of competence among student nurses, but the level of competence at the point of graduation remains below expected standards. Therefore, more research is needed to find strategies that can enhance the development of competence among students. The study explored students' conceptions of competence and the learning processes that support the development of competence in nursing practice. Gaining an understanding of learning and competence from the student's perspective can improve our current understanding of the development of competence. Utilising a phenomenographic approach, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted among purposively sampled groups of nursing students. The analysis of data was managed through ATLAS. ti 8.1 and followed the process of familiarisation, condensation, comparison, grouping, articulating labelling and contrasting of excerpts to generate the students' conceptions of learning. Five categories of description emerged and showed that the development of competence involves students increasing their understanding of what competence is, hence changing their learning strategies to meet the level of competence, as they understood it. In order of hierarchy from the lowest, the categories of description were: competence is understood as task completion; competence is understood as passing assessments /satisfying facilitators; competence is understood as applying theory to practice; competence is understood as performance of nursing according to clinical standards/guidelines; and competence is understood as performance that yields positive health outcomes.

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

AIM: The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best-practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research. DESIGN: Discussion Paper. DATA SOURCES: Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND MIDWIFERY: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. IMPACT: With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

Volunteering, health and the homeless - the cost of establishing a student-run primary healthcare clinic serving the inner-city homeless in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Those who are homeless are more prone to communicable, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and are less likely to access healthcare services. In South Africa there are no specific public healthcare services tailored to the needs of these communities, particularly if they are immigrants. Trinity Health Services is a student-run inner-city clinic providing free healthcare to the homeless of Johannesburg, South Africa. The clinic operates two nights per month and provides treatment for mainly acute conditions. The purpose of this study was to determine the costs of establishing and operating a student-run clinic for an indigent population. METHODS: This costing analysis used a mixed-methods approach combining an ingredients-based and top-down methodology. The costs, capital and recurrent, pertaining to the establishment and operating of the clinic as well as the cost of treatment per patient were identified and quantified from 1st January 2016 - 31st December 2017. RESULTS: The capital costs incurred in establishing the clinic were calculated to be £10,968.57 (ZAR 214157.08) and included building alterations, equipment purchased, installations, furniture, application for a pharmacy license, consumables and medications. The recurrent costs per annum were estimated at £17,730.72 (ZAR 346185.54) and comprised of overheads and maintenance, rental, personnel, pharmacy license, consumables and medication. The cost of treatment per patient, included medication dispensed and consumables used in the consultation, was estimated at £3.54 (ZAR 69.05) per visit. CONCLUSIONS: This study summarised the costs of establishing and operating a student-run clinic providing pertinent information essential to the sustainability of the service. It also provides a model for costs associated with free clinics in faith-based and university settings.

Learning experiences of medical and pharmacy students at a student-run clinic in south africa and the development of a framework for learning.

Background: Trinity Health Services (THS) is a free clinic that serves the homeless community of Braamfontein. The clinic is run by pharmacy and medical students registered in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of the Witwatersrand, assisted by academic staff. This setting provided an ideal space to document the interprofessional experiences between these two groups of students outside of formal lectures or clinical exposures. Therefore, the research question for this study was: What are the learning experiences of medical and pharmacy students working at an inner-city student-driven clinic? Methods: A convenience sampling method was employed. All students, who volunteered at the clinic on one or more occasion, were invited to participate in a discipline-specific focus group discussion (FGD). Four FGDs were held with between six and eight participants in each. The FGDs were facilitated by a faculty member not involved with the clinic. The recordings were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically, using Tesch's eight steps. Results: The following three themes emerged relating to learning experiences: "add more tools to your toolbox;" learning from supervisors and peers, and "we can really make a difference." These themes formed the framework for learning at THS. Patient care is placed at the core of the framework, and recognizing that learning occurs through serving, three learning outcomes were identified, namely health and homelessness; communication; clinical and communication skills as well as primary health care. Learning was facilitated through interactions with peers, supervisors, and interprofessional relationships. Discussion: The authentic learning experience led to development of accountability, communication, and responsibility. A framework emerged for learning from opportunities central to patient care.

The social accountability of doctors: a relationship based framework for understanding emergent community concepts of caring.

BACKGROUND: Social accountability is defined as the responsibility of institutions to respond to the health priorities of a community. There is an international movement towards the education of health professionals who are accountable to communities. There is little evidence of how communities experience or articulate this accountability. METHODS: In this grounded theory study eight community based focus group discussions were conducted in rural and urban South Africa to explore community members' perceptions of the social accountability of doctors. The discussions were conducted across one urban and two rural provinces. Group discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. RESULTS: Initial coding was done and three main themes emerged following data analysis: the consultation as a place of love and respect (participants have an expectation of care yet are often engaged with disregard); relationships of people and systems (participants reflect on their health priorities and the links with the social determinants of health) and Ubuntu as engagement of the community (reflected in their expectation of Ubuntu based relationships as well as part of the education system). These themes were related through a framework which integrates three levels of relationship: a central community of reciprocal relationships with the doctor-patient relationship as core; a level in which the systems of health and education interact and together with social determinants of health mediate the insertion of communities into a broader discourse. An ubuntu framing in which the tensions between vulnerability and power interact and reflect rights and responsibility. The space between these concepts is important for social accountability. CONCLUSION: Social accountability has been a concept better articulated by academics and centralized agencies. Communities bring a richer dimension to social accountability through their understanding of being human and caring. This study also creates the connection between ubuntu and social accountability and their mutual transformative capacity as agents for social justice.

The integration of blended learning into an occupational therapy curriculum: a qualitative reflection.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents a critical reflection of the integration of Blended Learning (BL) into an undergraduate occupational therapy curriculum which was delivered through Problem Based Learning (PBL). METHOD: This is a qualitative reflection of a Participatory Action Research (PAR) study using Brookfield's model for critical reflection of an educator's practice. The model uses four 'lenses' through which to focus enquiry: Lens 1) our autobiography as a learner of practice; Lens 2) our learners' eyes; Lens 3) our colleagues' experiences; and Lens 4) the theoretical literature. Grounded theory analysis was applied to the data. RESULTS: The factors that contributed to successful integration of technology and e-Learning into an existing curriculum, the hurdles that were navigated along the way, and how these influenced decisions and innovation are explored. The core categories identified in the data were "drivers of change" and "outcomes of BL integration". Key situations and pivotal events are highlighted for their role in the process that led to the project maturing. Each lens reflects the successes and hurdles experienced during the study. CONCLUSION: Brookfield's model provides an objective method of reflection which showed that despite the hurdles, e-Learning was successfully integrated into the curriculum.

An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Scoping reviews are used to assess the extent of a body of literature on a particular topic, and often to ensure that further research in that area is a beneficial addition to world knowledge. The aim of this paper reports upon the development of a methodology for scoping reviews based upon the Arksey and O'Malley framework, the Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien, and the Joanna Briggs Institute methods of evidence synthesis. METHODS: A working group consisting of members of the Joanna Briggs collaborating organizations met to discuss the proposed framework for the methodology and develop a draft for the scoping review methodology based on the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the work of Levac et al. This was followed by a workshop attended by other members of the organizations consisting of 30 international researchers to discuss the proposed methodology. Further refinement of the methodology was undertaken as a result of the feedback received from the workshop. RESULTS: The development of the methodology focused on five stages of the protocol and review development. These were identifying the research question by clarifying and linking the purpose and research question, identifying the relevant studies using a three-step literature search in order to balance feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness, careful selection of the studies to using a team approach, charting the data and collating the results to identify the implications of the study findings for policy, practice, or research. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: The current methodology recommends including both quantitative and qualitative research, as well as evidence from economic and expert opinion sources to answer questions of effectiveness, appropriateness, meaningfulness and feasibility of health practices and delivery methods. The proposed framework has the potential to provide options when faced with complex concepts or broad research questions.

Effectiveness of intrathecal dexmedetomidine vs fentanyl as additives to hyperbaric bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in women undergoing cesarean section: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to compare the effectiveness of intrathecal dexmedetomidine vs fentanyl as additives to hyperbaric bupivacaine in providing postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing cesarean section. INTRODUCTION: Pain following cesarean section remains a challenge, with limited treatment options due to potential undesirable parturient and neonatal side effects. Intrathecal dexmedetomidine has emerged as a favorable alternative to opioid additives to hyperbaric bupivacaine in prolonging postoperative analgesia, but its effectiveness requires further investigation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will evaluate studies of patients who underwent cesarean section under spinal anesthesia where dexmedetomidine and fentanyl were compared as intrathecal additives to hyperbaric bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia. This review will consider randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and prospective cohort studies for inclusion. No limits regarding publication date or language will be applied. METHODS: A preliminary search of PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials has been conducted to identify relevant index terms and keywords, which will be applied in a second search across PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Embase. Google Scholar, National Library of Medicine (Clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform will be searched to identify unpublished literature. Full-text studies will be subjected to an assessment of methodological quality, and data extraction will be performed independently by 2 reviewers. The results will be presented in both tabular and narrative format and, where possible, pooled into a meta-analysis. A Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Summary of Findings will be created to grade the certainty of evidence of the reported outcomes. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022364815.

Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews.

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. RESULTS: This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. CONCLUSION: This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews.

Large scoping reviews: managing volume and potential chaos in a pool of evidence sources.

Scoping reviews can identify a large number of evidence sources. This commentary describes and provides guidance on planning, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. This guidance is informed by experts in scoping review methodology, including JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Methodology group members, who have also conducted and reported large scoping reviews. We propose a working definition for large scoping reviews that includes approximately 100 sources of evidence but must also consider the volume of data to be extracted, the complexity of the analyses, and purpose. We pose 6 core questions for scoping review authors to consider when planning, developing, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. By considering and addressing these questions, scoping review authors might better streamline and manage the conduct and reporting of large scoping reviews from the planning to publishing stage.

Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Scoping reviewers often face challenges in the extraction, analysis, and presentation of scoping review results. Using best-practice examples and drawing on the expertise of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group and an editor of a journal that publishes scoping reviews, this paper expands on existing JBI scoping review guidance. The aim of this article is to clarify the process of extracting data from different sources of evidence; discuss what data should be extracted (and what should not); outline how to analyze extracted data, including an explanation of basic qualitative content analysis; and offer suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Reflections of students graduating from a transforming medical curriculum in South Africa: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The six year medical programme at the University of the Witwatersrand admits students into the programme through two routes--school entrants and graduate entrants. Graduates join the school entrants in the third year of study in a transformed curriculum called the Graduate Entry Medical Programme (GEMP). In years I and 2 of the GEMP, the curriculum is structured into system based blocks. Problem-based learning, using a three session format, is applied in these two years. The curriculum adopts a biopsychosocial approach to health care, which is implemented through spiral teaching and learning in four main themes--basic and clinical sciences, patient-doctor, community--doctor and personal and professional development. In 2010 this programme produced its fifth cohort of graduates. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative, descriptive and contextual study to explore the graduating students' perceptions of the programme. Interviews were conducted with a total of 35 participants who volunteered to participate in the study. The majority of the participants interviewed participated in focus group discussions. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically, using Tesch's eight steps. Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Witwatersrand. Participants provided written consent to participate in the interviews and for the interviews to be audio-taped. RESULTS: Six themes were identified. These were: two separate programmes, problem-based learning and Garmins® (navigation system), see patients for real, being seen as doctors, assessment: of mice and MCQ's, a cry for support and personal growth and pride. Participants were vocal in their reflections of experiences encountered during the programme and made several insightful suggestions for curriculum transformation. The findings suggest that graduates are exiting the programme confident and ready to begin their internships. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study have identified a number of areas which need attention in the curriculum. Specifically attention needs to be given to ensuring that assessment is standardized; student support structures and appropriate levels of teaching. The study demonstrated the value of qualitative methods in obtaining students' perceptions of a curriculum.

JBI series paper 4: the role of collaborative evidence networks in promoting and supporting evidence-based health care globally: reflections from 25 years across 38 countries.

Evidence-based health care (EBHC) is a worldwide movement with hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals working to ensure that health care practice, policy, and decision-making are informed by rigorous research evidence, to improve health outcomes. The success of this global agenda, however, depends on individuals and organizations working together within a functioning evidence ecosystem. Collaborative evidence networks are a key mechanism to facilitate the synthesis, transfer, and implementation of evidence into health care policy and practice. Using the network functions approach as a framework for review, this paper explores the strategic functions and form of the JBI Collaboration to illustrate the role of a collaborative evidence network in promoting and supporting EBHC globally. It illustrates how the functions of a collaborative evidence network enable the development, exchange, and dissemination of knowledge, the building of social capital, mobilization of resources, and amplification and advocacy of members work and ideas, which increase the capacity and effectiveness of members in achieving their unified purpose. Effective and sustainable collaborative evidence networks have innovative ways of relating and mobilizing energy for action and combine formal and informal structures and relationships to successfully work together to address complex global health issues and drive the EBHC agenda forward.

Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group.

ABSTRACT: Knowledge user consultation is often limited or omitted in the conduct of scoping reviews. Not including knowledge users within the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews could be due to a lack of guidance or understanding about what consultation requires and the subsequent benefits. Knowledge user engagement in evidence synthesis, including consultation approaches, has many associated benefits, including improved relevance of the research and better dissemination and implementation of research findings. Scoping reviews, however, have not been specifically focused on in terms of research into knowledge user consultation and evidence syntheses. In this paper, we will present JBI's guidance for knowledge user engagement in scoping reviews based on the expert opinion of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. We offer specific guidance on how this can occur and provide information regarding how to report and evaluate knowledge user engagement within scoping reviews. We believe that scoping review authors should embed knowledge user engagement into all scoping reviews and strive towards a co-creation model.

Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to clearly describe how to develop a robust and detailed scoping review protocol, which is the first stage of the scoping review process. This paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that their protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership. INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are a common approach to evidence synthesis for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers across a variety of fields. Scoping reviews are not concerned with making analytical comparisons based on pooling results data from multiple primary sources of evidence, but rather on collating and describing the evidence and presenting the summation in a clearly illustrated format. Methods for undertaking and reporting scoping reviews continue to be refined. Some prospective reviewers may be uncertain how to plan, structure, and report scoping review protocols, as there is little or no specific guidance for scoping review protocols yet available. METHODS: This guidance was developed by members of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group based on previous experience and expertise in developing scoping review and evidence synthesis methodologies, protocols, and reviews, as well as through experiences working with and guiding authors to develop scoping review protocols. Elements of a comprehensive scoping review protocol are outlined and explained in detail. CONCLUSION: Knowledge users of evidence syntheses rely on clear and transparent reporting to understand and use the results of published work to drive evidence-based improvements within health care and beyond. It is hoped that readers will be able to use this guidance when developing protocols to assist them in planning future scoping reviews and to carry them out with a high degree of transparency.

The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste.

OBJECTIVES: Scoping reviews and evidence map methodologies are increasingly being used by researchers. The objective of this article is to examine how scoping reviews can reduce research waste. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This article summarizes the key issues facing the research community regarding research waste and how scoping reviews can make an important contribution to the reduction of research waste in both primary and secondary research. RESULTS: The problem of research waste is an enduring challenge for global health, leading to a waste of human and financial resources and producing research outputs that do not provide answers to the most pressing research questions. Research waste occurs within primary research but also in secondary research such as evidence syntheses. The focus of scoping reviews on characterizing the nature of existing evidence on a topic and including all types of evidence, potentially reduces research waste in five ways: (1) identifying key research gaps on a topic, (2) determining appropriate outcome measures, (3) mapping existing methodological approaches, (4) developing a consistent understanding of terms and concepts used in existing evidence, and (5) ensuring scoping reviews do not exacerbate the issue of research waste. CONCLUSION: To ensure that scoping reviews do not themselves end up contributing to research waste, it is important to register the scoping review and to ensure that international reporting standards and methodological guidance are followed.

Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement.

ABSTRACT: The demand for rapid reviews has exploded in recent years. A rapid review is an approach to evidence synthesis that provides timely information to decision-makers (eg, health care planners, providers, policymakers, patients) by simplifying the evidence synthesis process. A rapid review is particularly appealing for urgent decisions. JBI is a world-renowned international collaboration for evidence synthesis and implementation methodologies. The principles for JBI evidence synthesis include comprehensiveness, rigor, transparency, and a focus on applicability to clinical practice. As such, JBI has not yet endorsed a specific approach for rapid reviews. In this paper, we compare rapid reviews versus other types of evidence synthesis, provide a range of rapid evidence products, outline how to appraise the quality of rapid reviews, and present the JBI position on rapid reviews. JBI Collaborating Centers conduct rapid reviews for decision-makers in specific circumstances, such as limited time or funding constraints. A standardized approach is not used for these cases;instead, the evidence synthesis methods are tailored to the needs of the decision-maker. The urgent need to deliver timely evidence to decision-makers poses challenges to JBI's mission to produce high-quality, trustworthy evidence. However, JBI recognizes the value of rapid reviews as part of the evidence synthesis ecosystem. As such, it is recommended that rapid reviews be conducted with the same methodological rigor and transparency expected of JBI reviews. Most importantly, transparency is essential, and the rapid review should clearly report where any simplification in the steps of the evidence synthesis process has been taken.