Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 59, Issue 9, November 2004, Pages 1819-1830
Social Science & Medicine

Rapid assessment: an international review of diffusion, practice and outcomes in the substance use field

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.028Get rights and content

Abstract

‘Rapid assessment’ (RA) methods have the potential to generate important public health information. This potential is now the subject of debate within the substance use field. Despite this, much remains unknown about the application and outcomes of RAs on substance use, a situation compounded by the absence of published studies. Consequently, we undertook a retrospective review of the use of RA in the substance use field drawing on three methods: literature review (n=300 published and unpublished documents); survey of RA practitioners/commissioners (n=1200 contacts); in-depth expert consultation (n=10 interviews). Study findings indicated: (i) earliest identified RAs were conducted in 1993, with 83 identified studies conducted by 2001; (ii) RAs have been conducted in 70 countries, with seven out of 10 assessments undertaken between 1998 and 2001; (iii) RAs were reported as taking 9–486 days (69 weeks) to complete; and (iv) important outcomes can follow RA on substance use—one in two studies were followed by medical or non-medical interventions, workshops, training, policy change, community participation, network building, or other outcomes (45/83; 54%), whilst more than one in four RAs were followed by medical and non-medical interventions, or policy impact and change (25/83; 30%). In conclusion, we argue that to fully realise the potential of RA in the substance use field, investment has to be made in RA's evidence and knowledge base: in short, a culture of learning, reflection and discussion has to be introduced into a methodology currently premised on rapidity and pragmatism.

Introduction

During the past two decades, rapid assessments (RA)—including rapid rural appraisals, situational analyses, needs assessments, and contextual assessments—have been used to quickly gather cultural, social, and institutional information in order to develop policies and programmes (Beebe, 2001; Chambers, 1980; Larson & Manderson, 1997). Endorsed by national, international, and United Nation agencies (e.g. Médecins Sans Frontières, 1998; UNICEF, 2002; US DHHS, 1999), the approach has been re-orientated from its origins in agricultural studies and primary care to address and respond to health problems including nutrition (Scrimshaw & Hurtado, 1987), water hygiene (Almedon, Blumenthal, & Manderson, 1997), reproductive health (Manderson, 1996), and most recently, substance use and HIV/AIDS (e.g. International HIV/AIDS Alliance, 2000; Stimson, Fitch, & Rhodes, 1998a; UNDCP, 1998).

Drawing on qualitative and quantitative techniques, RAs are typically undertaken in situations where data are needed quickly, where resource constraints rule out conventional research approaches (such as large-scale surveys, or in-depth qualitative studies), and where agencies require information to develop, monitor, or evaluate intervention programmes. Given the rapidity with which public health problems can emerge (as seen with natural disasters) and spread (as witnessed in ‘explosive’ HIV transmission among drug injectors), and the propensity for problems to occur in ‘time and resource poor’ settings, RA approaches have been welcomed by commentators as a logical development (Rhoades, 1992).

However, despite endorsement, discussion about the scientific and public health merit of RA has not been precluded. Whilst advocates continue to undertake RAs across a range of global settings, concerned observers have noted that there has been no demonstrable evidence that RA can achieve rapidity of response (McKeganey, 2000), produce data of a quality which meaningfully informs interventions (McKeganey, 2000), be cost-effective (Harris, Jerome, & Fawcett, 1997), or lead to outcomes which will not inadvertently harm already marginalized non-elite communities (Friedman, 2000). As Friedman summarises, “[t]o put it bluntly, we probably do not know if ‘rapid assessment’…is a good thing…in spite of my basic respect for some of the underlying theory” (Friedman, 2000).

Numerous responses have been made to such ‘challenges’ for evidence. Some have retorted that critics are overly concerned with measurable indicators, arguing that RA's strength lies in its process of mobilising often-disparate actors and including them in the assessment process (Greig & Kershnar, 2000). Others have observed that such challenges are unfair, noting that evaluation criteria have not been applied to other research or intervention methods (such as applied epidemiological assessments). Some commentators, meanwhile, have remarked that evaluation is usually the last thing on RA practitioners’ minds, with the generation of knowledge for action taking priority over preparing journal articles.

This paper makes an initial contribution of empirical data to this discussion, both to encourage others to begin constructing a RA ‘evidence base’, and also to describe developments within the substance field in the application, diffusion, and outcomes of RA. Drawing on findings from an international review conducted for the World Health Organization (WHO) on the use of RA in the substance use field, the paper considers three key issues: (1) understanding—how is RA conceptualised among those working in the field?. (2) application—what different models of RA practice are used, and to what extent? and (3) outcomes—in terms of intervention and change, what outcomes can be attributed to RA studies? Whilst the majority of data presented are specific to the substance use field, the paper also considers the wider consequences and implications for RA practitioners working on other health issues.

Section snippets

Methodology

The study was contracted by WHO to map the emergence of RA in the substance use field, to describe different models of practice, and to identify linked outcomes. The study was conducted January–July 2001 using three research methods. (1) A literature review of published documentation (undertaken in bibliographic databases including Medline, World of Science, BIDS, and IDS), and a review of unpublished literature through requests to study participants, focal points, and libraries. (2) A brief

Results: understanding and conceptions

The aim of ‘rapid assessment’ is simple—to combine the “speeding up of social science research” with “the explicit linking of assessment to action” (Rhodes, Stimson, Fitch, Ball, & Renton, 1999). However, whilst most conceptions of RA incorporate these ambitions, they often also supplement ‘rapidity’ and ‘intervention’ with a raft of additional aims and principles. Consequently, those asking ‘what is RA?’ are confronted with a range of methodological options, rather than a definitive answer.

Application and models

Some commentators note that we are experiencing an ‘epidemic’ of RA (Manderson & Aaby, 1992). Although the study did not highlight wholly epidemic progression, RAs were reported across a range of global settings, and in a variety of designs. In this section, we firstly present data on the diffusion of RA approaches in the substance use field; secondly, we consider issues of ‘rapidity’; before thirdly, outlining basic RA typologies and ‘models’.

Interventions and outcomes

RA approaches have the potential to not only generate public health information, but to also develop interventions and bring about change. However, although the intention underpinning RA is clear, what is less apparent is whether such potential is realised in practice, and if so, what intervention types are being developed? In this section, we describe reported intervention outcomes from the 83 identified RA studies, before considering the relationship between RA and intervention development,

Conclusion

This paper has made the case that RA methods have the potential to generate important public health information that can be used to develop intervention programmes. In support of this, it is clear that at least 83 RA studies have been conducted between 1993 and 2001, with the approach being used in at least 70 countries. Amongst these studies, one in four were reported as being associated with medical or non-medical interventions, or policy change initiatives (a figure which rises to one in two

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on data and experience obtained during the WHO Drug Injection Study Phase II—a project coordinated and sponsored by WHO, and implemented by the WHO Phase II Drug Injection Collaborative Study Group. Further study details and resources can be found at www.RARarchives.org.

References (40)

  • Chambers, R. (1980). Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire, Institute for Development Studies discussion...
  • W. De Jong et al.

    Rapid assessment of injection drug use and HIV in the Republic of Georgia

    Journal of Drug Issues

    (1999)
  • Dorajbee, J. (1998). Rapid situation assessment of injecting drug use in Delhi. SHARAN, unpublished...
  • J. Dorajbee et al.

    A multi-centre rapid assessment of injecting drug use in India

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2000)
  • R.I. Glass et al.

    Epidemiologic surveillance following disasters

  • K.J. Harris et al.

    Rapid assessment proceduresA review and critique

    Human Organization

    (1997)
  • Howard, J., Rhodes, T., Fitch, C., & Stimson G. V. (1998). Rapid assessment and response guide on psychoactive...
  • International HIV/AIDS Alliance. (2000). HIV and drug use: A toolkit on participatory assessment and response....
  • Jenkins, C. (2001). A six city rapid assessment in Bangladesh (short version). Unpublished...
  • Larson, A., & Manderson, L. (1997). Contextual assessment procedures for STDs and HIV/AIDS prevention programmes: A...
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Also at College Research Unit, The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 83 Victoria Street, London, UK.

    View full text