Search

ObjectivesA rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research.Study Design and SettingA modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions.ResultsPatients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results.ConclusionThe results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of pharmacist supplementary prescribers, their linked independent prescribers and patients, across a range of settings, in Scotland, towards pharmacist prescribing.Telephone interviews were conducted with nine pharmacist prescribers, eight linked independent prescribers (doctors) and 18 patients. The setting was primary and secondary care settings in six NHS Health Board areas in Scotland.In general, all stakeholders were supportive of pharmacists as supplementary prescribers, identifying benefits for patients and the wider health care team. Although patients raised no concerns, they had little idea of what to expect on their first visit, leading initially to feelings of apprehension. Pharmacists and doctors voiced concerns around a potential lack of continued funding, inadequate support networks and continuing professional development. Pharmacists were keen to undertake independent prescribing, although doctors were less supportive, citing issues around inadequate clinical examination skills.Pharmacists, doctors and patients were all supportive of developments in pharmacist supplementary prescribing, although doctors raised concerns around independent prescribing by pharmacists. The ability of pharmacists to demonstrate competence, to be aware of levels of competence and to identify learning needs requires further exploration.