Search

Background: While there has been widespread global acceptance of the importance of evidence-informed policy, many opportunities to inform health policy with research are missed, often because of a mismatch between when and where reliable evidence is needed, and when and where it is available. 'Living evidence' is an approach where systematic evidence syntheses (e.g. living reviews, living guidelines, living policy briefs, etc.) are continually updated to incorporate new relevant evidence as it becomes available. Living evidence approaches have the potential to overcome a major barrier to evidence-informed policy, making up-to-date systematic summaries of policy-relevant research available at any time that policy-makers need them. These approaches are likely to be particularly beneficial given increasing calls for policy that is responsive, and rapidly adaptive to changes in the policy context. We describe the opportunities presented by living evidence for evidence-informed policy-making and highlight areas for further exploration., Discussion: There are several elements of living approaches to evidence synthesis that might support increased and improved use of evidence to inform policy. Reviews are explicitly prioritised to be 'living' by partnerships between policy-makers and researchers based on relevance to decision-making, as well as uncertainty of existing evidence, and likelihood that new evidence will arise. The ongoing nature of the work means evidence synthesis teams can be dynamic and engage with policy-makers in a variety of ways over time; and synthesis topics, questions and methods can be adapted as policy interests or contextual factors shift. Policy-makers can sign-up to be notified when relevant new evidence is found, and can be confident that living syntheses are up-to-date and contain all research whenever they access them. The always up-to-date nature of living evidence syntheses means producers can rapidly demonstrate availability of relevant, reliable evidence when it is needed, addressing a frequently cited barrier to evidence-informed policymaking., Conclusions: While there are challenges to be overcome, living evidence provides opportunities to enable policy-makers to access up-to-date evidence whenever they need it and also enable researchers to respond to the issues of the day with up-to-date research; and update policy-makers on changes in the evidence base as they arise. It also provides an opportunity to build flexible partnerships between researchers and policy-makers to ensure that evidence syntheses reflect the changing needs of policy-makers., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Continual evidence surveillance is an integral feature of living guidelines. The Australian Stroke Guidelines include recommendations on 100 clinical topics and have been 'living' since 2018., Objectives: To describe the approach for establishing and evaluating an evidence surveillance system for the living Australian Stroke Guidelines., Methods: We developed a pragmatic surveillance system based on an analysis of the searches for the 2017 Stroke Guidelines and evaluated its reliability by assessing the potential impact on guideline recommendations. Search retrieval and screening workload are monitored monthly, together with the frequency of changes to the guideline recommendations., Results: Evidence surveillance was guided by practical considerations of efficiency and sustainability. A single PubMed search covering all guideline topics, limited to systematic reviews and randomised trials, is run monthly. The search retrieves about 400 records a month of which a sixth are triaged to the guideline panels for further consideration. Evaluations with Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register demonstrated the robustness of adopting this more restrictive approach. Collaborating with the guideline team in designing, implementing and evaluating the surveillance is essential for optimising the approach., Conclusion: Monthly evidence surveillance for a large living guideline is feasible and sustainable when applying a pragmatic approach., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Health Libraries Group.)

Background: Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy., Findings: We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1., Interpretation: Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19., Funding: The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MNP declares receiving provision of drug for clinical trials from CSL Behring, Takeda, Grifols, Emergent Biosciences, and Gilead. ZKM and EMW declare research funding from CSL Behring to Monash University for work outside this project. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A "living" approach to clinical practice guidelines is when the identification, appraisal and synthesis of evidence is maintained and repeated at an agreed frequency, with a clear process for when and how new evidence is to be incorporated. The value of a living approach to guidelines was emphasised during the COVID-19 pandemic when health professionals and policymakers needed to make decisions regarding patient care in the context of a nascent but rapidly evolving evidence base. In this perspective, we draw on our recent experience developing Australian and international living guidelines and reflect on the feasibility of applying living guideline methods and processes to a lifecycle approach to health technology assessment (HTA). We believe the opportunities and challenges of adopting a living approach in HTA fall into five key themes: identification, appraisal and synthesis of evidence; optimising the frequency of updates; embedding ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement; linking the emergence of new evidence to reimbursement; and system capacity to support a living approach. We acknowledge that the suitability of specific living approaches to HTA will be heavily influenced by the type of health technology, its intended use in the health system, local reimbursement pathways, and other policy settings. But we believe that the methods and processes applied successfully to guideline development to manage evidentiary uncertainty could be applied in the context of HTA and reimbursement decision-making to help manage similar sources of uncertainty., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Cheyne, Chakraborty, Lewis, Campbell, Turner and Norris.)

Background: COVID-19 led to a rapid acceleration in the number of systematic reviews. Readers need to know how up to date evidence is when selecting reviews to inform decisions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate how easily the currency of COVID-19 systematic reviews published early in the pandemic could be determined and how up to date these reviews were at the time of publication., Methods: We searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to COVID-19 added to PubMed in July 2020 and January 2021, including any that were first published as preprints. We extracted data on the date of search, number of included studies, and date first published online. For the search date, we noted the format of the date and where in the review this was reported. A sample of non-COVID-19 systematic reviews from November 2020 served as a comparator., Results: We identified 246 systematic reviews on COVID-19. In the abstract of these reviews, just over half (57%) reported the search date (day/month/year or month/year) while 43% failed to report any date. When the full text was considered, the search date was missing from 6% of reviews. The median time from last search to publication online was 91 days (IQR 63-130). Time from search to publication was similar for the subset of 15 rapid or living reviews (92 days) but shorter for the 29 reviews published as preprints (37 days). The median number of studies or publications included per review was 23 (IQR 12-40). In the sample of 290 non-COVID SRs, around two-thirds (65%) reported the search date while a third (34%) did not include any date in the abstract. The median time from search to publication online was 253 days (IQR 153-381) and each review included a median of 12 studies (IQR 8-21)., Conclusions: Despite the context of the pandemic and the need to easily ascertain the currency of systematic reviews, reporting of the search date information for COVID-19 reviews was inadequate. Adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the transparency and usefulness of systematic reviews to users., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To introduce methods for living guidelines based on practical experiences by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium (ALEC), the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), with methodological support from the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Network., Study Design and Setting: Members of ALEC, NICE, and the US GRADE Network, convened a working group to share experiences of the methods used to develop living guidelines and outline the key differences between traditional and living guidelines methods., Results: The guidance includes the following steps: 1) deciding if the guideline is a priority for a living approach, 2) preparing for living guideline development, 3) literature surveillance and frequency of searching, 4) assessment and synthesis of the evidence, 5) publication and dissemination, and 6) transitioning recommendations out of living mode., Conclusion: This paper introduces methods for living guidelines and provides examples of the similarities and differences in approach across multiple organizations conducting living guidelines. It also introduces a series of papers exploring methods for living guidelines based on our practical experiences, including consumer involvement, selecting and prioritizing questions, search decisions, and methods decisions., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe and reflect on the consumer engagement approaches used in five living guidelines from the perspectives of consumers (i.e., patients, carers, the public, and their representatives) and guideline developers., Study Design and Setting: In a descriptive report, we used a template to capture engagement approaches and the experiences of consumers and guideline developers in living guidelines in Australia and the United Kingdom. Responses were summarized using descriptive synthesis., Results: One guideline used a Consumer Panel, three included two to three consumers in the guideline development group, and one did both. Much of our experience was common to all guidelines (e.g., consumers felt welcomed but that their role initially lacked clarity). We identified six challenges and opportunities specific to living guidelines: managing the flow of work; managing engagement in online environments; managing membership of the panel; facilitating more flexibility, variety and depth in engagement; recruiting for specific skills-although these can be built over time; developing living processes to improve; and adapting consumer engagement together., Conclusion: Consumer engagement in living guidelines should follow established principles of consumer engagement in guidelines. Conceiving the engagement as living, underpinned by a living process evaluation, allows the approach to be developed with consumers over time., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context., Study Design and Setting: We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers., Results: Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs., Conclusion: We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This article is part of a series on methods for living guidelines, consolidating practical experiences from developing living guidelines. It focuses on methods for identification, selection, and prioritization of clinical questions for a living approach to guideline development., Study Design and Setting: Members of the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the US Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Network, convened a working group. All members have expertize and practical experience in the development of living guidelines. We collated methods, documents on prioritization from each organization's living guidelines, conducted interviews and held working group discussions. We consolidated these to form best practice principles which were then edited and agreed on by the working group members., Results: We developed best practice principles for (1) identification, (2) selection, and (3) prioritization, of questions for a living approach to guideline development. Several different strategies for undertaking prioritizing questions are explored., Conclusion: The article provides guidance for prioritizing questions in living guidelines. Subsequent articles in this series explore consumer involvement, search decisions, and methods decisions that are appropriate for questions with different priority levels., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate how quickly evidence was incorporated into the Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 during the first 12 months of the pandemic., Study Design and Setting: For each study concerning drug therapies included in the guideline from April 3, 2020 to April 1, 2021, we extracted the publication date of the study, and the guideline version the study was included in. We analyzed two subgroups of studies as follows: those published in high impact factor journals and those with 100 or more participants., Results: In the first year, we published 37 major versions of the guidelines, incorporating 129 studies that investigated 48 drug therapies informing 115 recommendations. The median time from first publication of a study to incorporation in the guideline was 27 days (interquartile range [IQR], 16 to 44), ranging from 9 to 234 days. For the 53 studies in the highest impact factor journals, the median was 20 days (IQR 15 to 30), and for the 71 studies with 100 or more participants the median was 22 days (IQR 15 to 36)., Conclusion: Developing and sustaining living guidelines where evidence is rapidly incorporated is a resource- and time-intensive undertaking; however, this study demonstrates that it is feasible, even over a long period., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses., Main Results: We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I 2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I 2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I 2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I 2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I 2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I 2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit., Authors' Conclusions: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up-to-date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels., Main Recommendations: In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non-pregnant adults with COVID-19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID-19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care., Changes in Management as a Result of the Guideline: The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au., (© 2022 The Authors. Medical Journal of Australia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

Background: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence., Objective: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care., Design: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders., Setting: International., Participants: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines., Measurements: Not applicable., Results: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication., Limitation: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented., Conclusion: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines., Primary Funding Source: None.

Objectives: To identify and map all trials in maternal health conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, to identify geographical and thematic trends, as well as comparing to global causes of maternal death and preidentified priority areas., Design: Systematic scoping review., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Extracted data included location, study characteristics and whether trials corresponded to causes of mortality and identified research priority topics., Results: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database, a combined registry of trials from multiple sources. Our search identified 7269 articles, 874 of which were included for analysis. Between 2010 and 2019, maternal health trials conducted in LMICs more than doubled (50-114). Trials were conducted in 61 countries-231 trials (26.4%) were conducted in Iran. Only 225 trials (25.7%) were aligned with a cause of maternal mortality. Within these trials, pre-existing medical conditions, embolism, obstructed labour and sepsis were all under-represented when compared with number of maternal deaths globally. Large numbers of studies were conducted on priority topics such as labour and delivery, obstetric haemorrhage and antenatal care. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, diabetes and health systems and policy-despite being high-priority topics-had relatively few trials., Conclusion: Despite trials conducted in LMICs increasing from 2010 to 2019, there were significant gaps in geographical distribution, alignment with causes of maternal mortality and known research priority topics. The research gaps identified provide guidance and insight for future research conduct in low-resource settings., Trial Registration Number: 10.17605/OSF.IO/QUJP5., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: "Living guidelines" are guidelines which are continually kept up to date as new evidence emerges. Living guideline methods are evolving. The aim of this study was to determine how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken for the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines., Methods: Members of the Living Stroke Guidelines Development Group were invited to complete an online survey. Participants nominated one or more recommendation topics from the Living Stroke Guidelines with which they had been involved and answered questions about that topic, assessing whether it met criteria for living evidence synthesis, and how frequently searches for new evidence should be undertaken and why. For each topic we also determined how many studies had been assessed and included, and whether recommendations had been changed., Results: Fifty-seven assessments were received from 33 respondents, covering half of the 88 guideline topic areas. Nearly all assessments (49, 86%) were that the continual updating process should be maintained. Only three assessments (5%) deemed that searches should be conducted monthly; 3-monthly (14, 25%), 6-monthly (13, 23%) and yearly (17, 30%) searches were far more frequently recommended. Rarely (9, 16%) were topics deemed to meet all three criteria for living review. The vast majority of assessments (45, 79%) deemed the topic a priority for decision-making. Nearly half indicated that there was uncertainty in the available evidence or that new evidence was likely to be available soon. Since 2017, all but four of the assessed topic areas have had additional studies included in the evidence summary. For eight topics, there have been changes in recommendations, and revisions are underway for an additional six topics. Clinical importance was the most common reason given for why continual evidence surveillance should be undertaken. Workload for reviewers was a concern, particularly for topics where there is a steady flow of publication of small trials., Conclusions: Our study found that participants felt that the vast majority of topics assessed in the Living Stroke Guidelines should be continually updated. However, only a fifth of topic areas were assessed as conclusively meeting all three criteria for living review, and the definition of "continual" differed widely. This work has informed decisions about search frequency for the Living Stroke Guidelines and form the basis of further research on methods for frequent updating of guidelines., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Guideline developers are encouraged to engage patients, carers and their representatives ('consumers') from diverse backgrounds in guideline development to produce more widely applicable guidelines. However, consumers from diverse backgrounds are infrequently included in guidelines and there is scant research to support guideline developers to do this., Objectives: To identify principles and approaches to broaden the diversity of consumers engaged in guideline development., Design: Scoping review and semi-structured interviews., Methods: We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2020 for studies, reports and guidance documents. Inclusion criteria included the terms 'consumer' (patients, carers and their representatives), 'diversity' (defined using the PROGRESS-PLUS mnemonic) and 'consumer engagement' (the active involvement of consumers at any stage of guideline development). We also conducted four interviews with consumers and guideline developers. We used descriptive synthesis to identify themes, and summarised information about implemented approaches used to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines., Results: From 10 included documents, we identified eight themes. Themes covered general engagement concepts (Respectful partnerships; Recruitment; Expectations, process and review); specific concepts about guideline development group (GDG) engagement (Characteristics of guideline personnel; Consumers' role, characteristics and prominence; Preparing and supporting consumers); and other (non-GDG) approaches (Online methods; Consultations and research-based approaches). The most commonly included PROGRESS-PLUS categories were Disability, Race/culture/ethnicity/language, Place of residence and Other vulnerable (eg, 'disadvantaged groups'). Each theme included the views of both consumers and guideline developers. We found descriptions of 12 implemented engagement approaches to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines., Conclusions: Relationship-building, mitigating power imbalances and meeting consumers where they are at underpin our findings. Engaging with diverse groups may require greater attention to building formal, respectful partnerships and employing inclusive engagement methods., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared, (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach., Study Design and Setting: In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints)., Results: We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4-57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth., Conclusion: There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear., Methods: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan., Results: Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks., Conclusion: The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this., Methods: A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement., Results: A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored., Conclusions: As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Maintaining clinical guideline currency has been one challenge to traditional guideline development. This paper describes the methods used to maintain a large national guideline for stroke management., Study Design and Setting: The Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines are developed to meet Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) standards. Monthly surveillance is conducted for new systematic reviews and randomised controlled studies. Included studies undergo data extraction followed by preparation of updated evidence-to-decision frameworks which are used to inform updates, or development of new recommendations. Small writing groups made up of clinical experts and those with lived experience review and agree on changes, which are finally reviewed by a multidisciplinary Guidelines Steering Group. Draft changes are developed and published using the online MAGICapp platform, with dissemination and promotion via traditional methods as well as social media., Results: Each month approximately 350 abstracts are considered, covering 96 clinical topics and taking on average 16 h to review. There have been four major guideline updates covering 34 new and updated recommendations., Conclusion: It is feasible to use 'living' methods to maintain the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. Further work is now needed to understand the impact of living guidelines., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest declaration Kelvin Hill -program manager for lead agency, no other conflicts of interest Coralie English -co-chair of the guidelines content team, no other conflicts of interest Bruce C.V. Campbell -co-chair of the guidelines content team, no other conflicts of interest Steve McDonald - involved in Cochrane living methods, no other conflicts of interest Loyal Pattuwage -no conflicts of interest Peta Bates -no conflicts of interest Chris Lassig -no conflicts of interest Tari Turner -involved in Cochrane living methods, no other conflicts of interest, (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Systematic reviews are difficult to keep up to date, but failure to do so leads to poor review currency and accuracy. "Living systematic review" (LSR) is an approach that aims to continually update a review, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs may be particularly important in fields where research evidence is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain, and new research may change policy or practice decisions.This chapter describes the concept and processes of living systematic reviews. It describes the general principles of LSRs, when they might be of particular value, and how their procedures differ from conventional systematic reviews. The chapter focuses particularly on two methods of sequential meta-analysis that may be particularly useful for LSRs: Trial Sequential Analysis and Sequential Meta-Analysis, which both control for Type I error, Type II error (failing to detect a genuine effect) and take account of heterogeneity., (© 2022. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Mindfulness interventions are increasingly popular as an approach to improve mental well-being. To date, no Cochrane Review examines the effectiveness of mindfulness in medical students and junior doctors. Thus, questions remain regarding the efficacy of mindfulness interventions as a preventative mechanism in this population, which is at high risk for poor mental health.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions with a primary focus on mindfulness on the mental well-being and academic performance of medical students and junior doctors., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases (to October 2021) and conducted grey literature searches.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of mindfulness that involved medical students of any year level and junior doctors in postgraduate years one, two or three. We included any psychological intervention with a primary focus on teaching the fundamentals of mindfulness as a preventative intervention. Our primary outcomes were anxiety and depression, and our secondary outcomes included stress, burnout, academic performance, suicidal ideation and quality of life.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods as recommended by Cochrane, including Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB2).  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies involving 731 participants in quantitative analysis.  Compared with waiting-list control or no intervention, mindfulness interventions did not result in a substantial difference immediately post-intervention for anxiety (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.09, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.52; P = 0.67, I 2  = 57%; 4 studies, 255 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Converting the SMD back to the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale 21-item self-report questionnaire (DASS-21) showed an estimated effect size which is unlikely to be clinically important. Similarly, there was no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for depression (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.31; P = 0.62, I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 250 participants; low-certainty evidence). Converting the SMD back to DASS-21 showed an estimated effect size which is unlikely to be clinically important. No studies reported longer-term assessment of the impact of mindfulness interventions on these outcomes.  For the secondary outcomes, the meta-analysis showed a small, substantial difference immediately post-intervention for stress, favouring the mindfulness intervention (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13; P < 0.05, I 2  = 33%; 8 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, this difference is unlikely to be clinically important. The meta-analysis found no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for burnout (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.00; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 3 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis found a small, substantial difference immediately post-intervention for academic performance (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; P < 0.05, I² = 0%; 2 studies, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence); however, this difference is unlikely to be clinically important. Lastly, there was no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.32; 1 study, 167 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for three pre-specified outcomes of this review: deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. We assessed the certainty of evidence to range from low to very low across all outcomes. Across most outcomes, we most frequently judged the risk of bias as having 'some concerns'. There were no studies with a low risk of bias across all domains.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of mindfulness in our target population remains unconfirmed. There have been relatively few studies of mindfulness interventions for junior doctors and medical students. The available studies are small, and we have some concerns about their risk of bias. Thus, there is not much evidence on which to draw conclusions on effects of mindfulness interventions in this population. There was no evidence to determine the effects of mindfulness in the long term., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Implementation of evidence-based care remains a key challenge in clinical practice. Determining "what" to implement can guide implementation efforts. This paper describes a process developed to identify priority recommendations from clinical guidelines for implementation, incorporating the perspectives of both consumers and health professionals. A case study is presented where the process was used to prioritize recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines., Methods: The process was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers following consultation with experts in the field of implementation and stroke care in Australia. Use of the process incorporated surveys and facilitated workshops. Survey data were analysed descriptively; responses to ranking exercises were analysed via a graph theory-based voting system., Results: The four-step process to identify high-priority recommendations for implementation comprised the following: (1) identifying key implementation criteria, which included (a) reliability of the evidence underpinning the recommendation, (b) capacity to measure change in practice, (c) a recommendation-practice gap, (d) clinical importance and (e) feasibility of making the recommended changes; (2) shortlisting recommendations; (3) ranking shortlisted recommendations and (4) reaching consensus on top priorities. The process was applied to the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines between February 2019 and February 2020. Seventy-five health professionals and 16 consumers participated. Use of the process was feasible. Three recommendations were identified as priorities for implementation from over 400 recommendations., Conclusion: It is possible to implement a robust process which involves consumers, clinicians and researchers to systematically prioritize guideline recommendations for implementation. The process is generalizable and could be applied in clinical areas other than stroke and in different geographical regions to identify implementation priorities. The identification of three clear priority recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines will directly inform the development and delivery of national implementation strategies.

Background and Objectives: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines., Methods: The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel., Results: The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context., Conclusions: The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019., Design: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery., Setting: International., Patients: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed., Conclusions: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019., Competing Interests: Dr. Tong is supported by The University of Sydney Robinson Fellowship. Dr. Morris is supported by a Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (WT 2055214/Z/16/Z). The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the article. Dr. Douglas is the principal investigator of clinical and translational research studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and coronavirus disease 2019 from National Institutes of Health, Roche Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech. Research grants are to his institution, Denver Health Medical Center. Dr. Povoa had received lecture fees from Orion, Pfizer, and Technofage. Dr. Azevedo received funding from Halex Istar and Baxter. Dr. Marshall received funding from AM Pharma, and he disclosed he is Cochair of the World Health Organization Working Group on Clinical Characterization and Management. Dr. Mer received funding from honoraria for serving on speakers bureaus and advisory boards as an invited “key opinion leader,” including from Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, and Sun. Dr. Morris received support from WT/Charity Open Access Fund. Dr. Morris’ institution received funding from WT. Dr. Smyth’s institution received funding from Vertex outside the submitted work; he disclosed having a patent “Alkyl quinolones as biomarkers of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and uses thereof”; and he received funding from Teva, Novartis, and Vertex, outside the submitted work. Dr. Simpson disclosed he is a coapplicant on independent grants with Becton Dickinson Biosciences and he is the Director of a National Institute for Health Research In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, which works with companies across the diagnostics industry. Dr. Turner’s institution received funding from Burnet Institute and United States Agency for International Development, and she received funding from World Health Organization. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019., Design: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set., Setting: International., Subjects: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers)., Interventions: None., Measurements: None., Main Results: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019., Conclusions: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

Objectives: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials., Design: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically., Setting: International., Subjects: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers)., Interventions: None., Measurements: None., Main Results: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes., Conclusions: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Background: The conduct and publication of scientific research are increasingly open and collaborative. There is growing interest in Web-based platforms that can effectively enable global, multidisciplinary scientific teams and foster networks of scientists in areas of shared research interest. Designed to facilitate Web-based collaboration in research evidence synthesis, TaskExchange highlights the potential of these kinds of platforms., Objective: This paper describes the development, growth, and future of TaskExchange, a Web-based platform facilitating collaboration in research evidence synthesis., Methods: The original purpose of TaskExchange was to create a platform that connected people who needed help with their Cochrane systematic reviews (rigorous syntheses of health research) with people who had the time and expertise to help. The scope of TaskExchange has now been expanded to include other evidence synthesis tasks, including guideline development. The development of TaskExchange was initially undertaken in 5 agile development phases with substantial user engagement. In each phase, software was iteratively deployed as it was developed and tested, enabling close cycles of development and refinement., Results: TaskExchange enables users to browse and search tasks and members by keyword or nested filters, post and respond to tasks, sign up to notification emails, and acknowledge the work of TaskExchange members. The pilot platform has been open access since August 2016, has over 2300 members, and has hosted more than 630 tasks, covering a wide range of research synthesis-related tasks. Response rates are consistently over 75%, and user feedback has been positive., Conclusions: TaskExchange demonstrates the potential for new technologies to support Web-based collaboration in health research. Development of a relatively simple platform for peer-to-peer exchange has provided opportunities for systematic reviewers to get their reviews completed more quickly and provides an effective pathway for people to join the global health evidence community., (©Tari Turner, Emily Steele, Chris Mavergames, Julian Elliott, Project Transform Team. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 13.12.2018.)

The recent proliferation of strategies designed to increase the use of research in health policy (knowledge exchange) demands better application of contemporary conceptual understandings of how research shapes policy. Predictive models, or action frameworks, are needed to organise existing knowledge and enable a more systematic approach to the selection and testing of intervention strategies. Useful action frameworks need to meet four criteria: have a clearly articulated purpose; be informed by existing knowledge; provide an organising structure to build new knowledge; and be capable of guiding the development and testing of interventions. This paper describes the development of the SPIRIT Action Framework. A literature search and interviews with policy makers identified modifiable factors likely to influence the use of research in policy. An iterative process was used to combine these factors into a pragmatic tool which meets the four criteria. The SPIRIT Action Framework can guide conceptually-informed practical decisions in the selection and testing of interventions to increase the use of research in policy. The SPIRIT Action Framework hypothesises that a catalyst is required for the use of research, the response to which is determined by the capacity of the organisation to engage with research. Where there is sufficient capacity, a series of research engagement actions might occur that facilitate research use. These hypotheses are being tested in ongoing empirical work., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)