A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health

Overview

Journal Int J Public Health

Specialty Public Health

Date 2024 Sep 5

PMID 39234445

Authors

Dyon Hoekstra

Margot Mutsch

Annegret Borchard

Christina Kien

Ursula Griebler

Erik von Elm

Eva Rehfuess

Ansgar Gerhardus

Stefan K Lhachimi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to develop and apply a structured approach for prioritising topics for systematic reviews in public health, framed according to the readily applicable PICO format, which encourages the involvement of stakeholders' preferences in a transparent matter.

Methods: We developed a multi-stage process, consisting of a scoping and two Delphi stages with web-based surveys and invited public health stakeholders in Switzerland to participate: First, respondents specified topics for different public health domains, which were reformulated in a PICO format by content analysis. Second, respondents rated the topics using five stakeholder-refined assessment criteria. Overall rankings were calculated to assess differences between stakeholder groups and rating criteria.

Results: In total, 215 respondents suggested 728 topics altogether. The response rate in the two Delphi stages was 91.6% and 77.6%, respectively. Most top-rated review topics focused on the effectiveness of interventions providing education to different target groups, followed by interventions to increase access to specific healthcare services.

Conclusion: Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.

References

Chalmers I, Bracken M, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu A . How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014; 383(9912):156-65. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. View

Akl E, Fadlallah R, Ghandour L, Kdouh O, Langlois E, Lavis J . The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017; 15(1):77. PMC: 5583759. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-017-0242-4. View

Morton K, Atkin A, Corder K, Suhrcke M, Turner D, van Sluijs E . Engaging stakeholders and target groups in prioritising a public health intervention: the Creating Active School Environments (CASE) online Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(1):e013340. PMC: 5253605. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013340. View

Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P . Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000; 355(9220):2037-40. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5. View

Tomlinson M, Chopra M, Hoosain N, Rudan I . A review of selected research priority setting processes at national level in low and middle income countries: towards fair and legitimate priority setting. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011; 9:19. PMC: 3115910. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-9-19. View

Viergever R, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, Terry R . A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010; 8:36. PMC: 3018439. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-8-36. View

Li T, Ervin A, Scherer R, Jampel H, Dickersin K . Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research: a case study using primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2010; 117(10):1937-45. PMC: 2967722. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.07.004. View

Tong A, Synnot A, Crowe S, Hill S, Matus A, Scholes-Robertson N . Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1):243. PMC: 6935471. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0889-3. View

Schiavenato M, Chu F . PICO: What it is and what it is not. Nurse Educ Pract. 2021; 56:103194. DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103194. View

10.

Meremikwu M, Udoh E, Nwagbara B, Effa E, Oringanje C, Edet B . Priority setting for systematic review of health care interventions in Nigeria. Health Policy. 2010; 99(3):244-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.11.004. View

11.

Reed D, Cook D, Beckman T, Levine R, Kern D, Wright S . Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. 2007; 298(9):1002-9. DOI: 10.1001/jama.298.9.1002. View

12.

Grill C . Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review. Res Involv Engagem. 2021; 7(1):75. PMC: 8555197. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-021-00318-6. View

13.

Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann H, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl E, Davoli M . GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016; 353:i2016. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i2016. View

14.

Rudan I, Gibson J, Ameratunga S, El Arifeen S, Bhutta Z, Black M . Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method. Croat Med J. 2008; 49(6):720-33. PMC: 2621022. DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2008.49.720. View

15.

Hoekstra D, Mutsch M, Kien C, Gerhardus A, Lhachimi S . Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(8):e015500. PMC: 5724103. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015500. View

16.

Cartier Y, Creatore M, Hoffman S, Potvin L . Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018; 16(1):53. PMC: 6014000. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-018-0335-8. View

17.

Nast I, Tal A, Schmid S, Schoeb V, Rau B, Barbero M . Physiotherapy Research Priorities in Switzerland: Views of the Various Stakeholders. Physiother Res Int. 2015; 21(3):137-46. DOI: 10.1002/pri.1621. View

18.

Nasser M, Welch V, Tugwell P, Ueffing E, Doyle J, Waters E . Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 66(5):474-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.001. View

19.

Barnieh L, Jun M, Laupacis A, Manns B, Hemmelgarn B . Determining research priorities through partnership with patients: an overview. Semin Dial. 2014; 28(2):141-6. DOI: 10.1111/sdi.12325. View

20.

Fadlallah R, El-Harakeh A, Bou-Karroum L, Lotfi T, El-Jardali F, Hishi L . A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 120:67-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.009. View