Dataset Information

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards.

Design

Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting.

Results

CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38).

Conclusions

Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

SUBMITTER: Thomas R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5513001 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.

Thomas Rae R Sims Rebecca R Degeling Chris C Street Jackie M JM Carter Stacy M SM Rychetnik Lucie L Whitty Jennifer A JA Wilson Andrew A Ward Paul P Glasziou Paul P

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20161005 4

<h4>Background</h4>Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a pr ...[more]

PMID: 27704684

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeOutcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been shown to influence clinical decision making. Thus, the quality and reliability of these outcomes are essential for both patients and medical care providers. To date, no study has assessed the quality of intervention reporting of RCTs in orthopaedics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of intervention reporting of published RCTs in the field of orthopaedics using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.MethodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, we applied the TIDieR checklist to assess the quality of intervention reporting in orthopaedic RCTs. Additionally, we evaluated the TIDieR checklist's influence on intervention reporting by comparing overall adherence to checklist items in trials published before the TIDieR checklist's release versus trials published after its release. Finally, we assessed whether certain factors were associated with the quality of intervention reporting.ResultsFrom a random sample of 300 publications in orthopaedic journals, 175 parallel-arm and cluster RCTs were identified. The overall rate of adherence to TIDieR items was 58.4%. Only 31.4% of orthopaedic RCTs adhered to at least 6 of the 12 TIDieR checklist items, whereas 0% adhered to all 12 items. We found no significant improvement in the quality of intervention reporting in studies published after the TIDieR checklist's release compared with studies published before its release (P = .97). Additionally, preregistered trials were associated with more complete intervention reporting.ConclusionsOur results suggest suboptimal reporting of orthopaedic RCT interventions. In addition, the TIDieR checklist's intended effect-to better the quality of RCT intervention reporting-appears to have fallen short of its goal.Clinical relevanceBecause outcomes of RCTs are used to guide clinical decision making, it is essential that orthopaedic surgeons and clinical practice guideline panels are equipped with high-quality published research. Increasing the accuracy of intervention reporting may lead to more accurate clinical application. Thus, adoption of more stringent reporting of trial interventions by researchers, authors, and journal editors may improve the quality of orthopaedic research, as well as improve patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe lack of a reporting guideline for scaling of evidence-based practices (EBPs) studies has prompted the registration of the Standards for reporting studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies of EBPs (SUCCEED) with EQUATOR Network. The development of SUCCEED will be guided by the following main steps recommended for developing health research reporting guidelines.MethodsExecutive Committee. We established a committee composed of members of the core research team and of an advisory group. Systematic review. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework on 29 November 2019 (https://osf.io/vcwfx/). We will include reporting guidelines or other reports that may include items relevant to studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies. We will search the following electronic databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from inception. In addition, we will systematically search websites of EQUATOR and other relevant organizations. Experts in the field of reporting guidelines will also be contacted. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A narrative analysis will be conducted to compile a list of items for the Delphi exercise.Consensus processWe will invite panelists with expertise in: development of relevant reporting guidelines, methodologists, content experts, patient/member of the public, implementers, journal editors, and funders. We anticipated that three rounds of web-based Delphi consensus will be needed for an acceptable degree of agreement. We will use a 9-point scale (1 = extremely irrelevant to 9 = extremely relevant). Participants' response will be categorized as irrelevant (1-3), equivocal (4-6) and relevant (7-9). For each item, the consensus is reached if at least 80% of the participants' votes fall within the same category. The list of items from the final round will be discussed at face-to-face consensus meeting. Guideline validation. Participants will be authors of scaling studies. We will collect quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured interview) data. Descriptive analyses will be conducted on quantitative data and constant comparative techniques on qualitative data.DiscussionEssential items for reporting scaling studies will contribute to better reporting of scaling studies and facilitate the transparency and scaling of evidence-based health interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveClinical guidelines are designed to optimise patient care and provide efficient approaches for therapy. Epilepsy is a chronic brain disorder that continues to experience a considerable treatment gap due to non-standard recommendations. We assessed the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on epilepsy over the past 5 years to generate a reporting specification for this study.SettingSeven databases were searched in May 2018 focusing on the period from 2013 to 2018. These included Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Reporting quality of epilepsy guidelines was assessed by two independent authors using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) approach. Spearman's correlation was used to assess inter-rater reliability.ParticipantsParticipants with epilepsy or seizure, not limited by age, gender, course of disease or cause of epilepsy, were included.InterventionsThere were no limitations with regard to intervention.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe outcome was the ability of the RIGHT tool to measure reporting quality.ResultsTwelve relevant guidelines were included in this study. The reporting quality was not high in any of the included guidelines. The highest reporting quality included a 'yes' proportion of 77.1%, whereas the worst included a corresponding proportion of 37.1%. Overall evaluation results showed that 16.7% of the included guidelines were of high quality, 75% were of medium quality and 8.3% were of low quality. The correlation between the two estimators was credible (ρ>0.7).ConclusionsAppraisal of these guidelines using the RIGHT tool revealed that the quality of reporting varied among guidelines. Items that exhibited low quality in most included guidelines were healthcare questions, rationale/explanation for recommendations, quality assurance, funding source(s) and role(s) of the funder, and limitations of the guideline. Thus, these aspects should receive greater attention in future guideline reporting.

Dataset Information

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.

Background

Design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets