Dataset Information

Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:We have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context.

SUBMITTER: Hoekstra D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5724103 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas.

Hoekstra Dyon D Mütsch Margot M Kien Christina C Gerhardus Ansgar A Lhachimi Stefan K SK

BMJ open 20170804 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>The Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agend ...[more]

PMID: 28780546

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and prioritise interventions, from the perspectives of parents and health professionals, which may be alternatives to current unscheduled paediatric urgent care pathways.DesignFLAMINGO (FLow of AdMissions in chIldren and youNG peOple) is a sequential mixed-methods study, with public and patient involvement (PPI) throughout. Data linkage for urgent admissions and three referral sources: emergency department, out of hours service and general practice, was followed by qualitative interviews with parents and professionals. Findings were presented and discussed at a stakeholder intervention prioritisation event.SettingNational Health Service in Scotland, UK.ParticipantsQuantitative data: children with urgent medical admission to hospital from 2015 to 2017. Qualitative interviews: parents and health professionals with experiences of urgent short stay hospital admissions of children. PPI engagement was conducted with nine parent-toddler groups and a university-based PPI advisory group. Stakeholder event: parents, health professionals and representatives from Scottish Government, academia, charities and PPI attended.ResultsData for 171 039 admissions which included 92 229 short stay admissions were analysed and 48 health professionals and 21 parents were interviewed. The stakeholder event included 7 parents, 12 health professionals and 28 other stakeholders. Analysis and synthesis of all data identified seven interventions which were prioritised at the stakeholder event: (1) addressing gaps in acute paediatric skills of health professionals working in community settings; (2) assessment and observation of acutely unwell children in community settings; (3) creation of holistic children's 'hubs'; (4) adoption of 'hospital at home' models; and three specialised care pathways for subgroups of children; (5) convulsions; (6) being aged <2 years old; and (7) wheeze/bronchiolitis. Stakeholders prioritised interventions 1, 2 and 3; these could be combined into a whole population intervention. Barriers to progressing these include resources, staffing and rurality.ConclusionsHealth professionals and families want future interventions that are patient-centred, community-based and aligned to outcomes that matter to them.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Healthcare is a complex system, so quality improvement will commonly lead to unintended consequences which are rarely evaluated. In previous qualitative work, we proposed a framework for considering the range of these potential consequences, in terms of their desirability and the extent to which they were predictable or expected during planning. This paper elaborates on the previous findings, using consensus methods to examine what consequences should be identified, why and how to prioritise, evaluate and interpret all identified consequences, and what stakeholders should be involved throughout this process. DESIGN:Two-round modified Delphi consensus study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Both rounds were completed by 60 panellists from an academic, clinical or management background and experience in designing, implementing or evaluating quality improvement programmes. RESULTS:Panellists agreed that trade-offs (expected undesirable consequences) and unpleasant surprises (unexpected undesirable consequences) should be actively considered. Measurement of harmful consequences for patients, and those with high workload or financial impact was prioritised, and their evaluation could also involve the use of qualitative methods. Clinical teams were agreed as important to involve at all stages, from identifying potential consequences, prioritising which of those to systematically evaluate, undertaking appropriate evaluation and interpreting the findings. Patients were necessary in identifying consequences, managers in identifying and prioritising, and improvement advisors in interpreting the data. CONCLUSION:There was consensus that a balanced approach to considering all the consequences of improvement can be achieved by carefully considering predictable trade-offs from the outset and deliberately pausing after implementation to identify any unexpected surprises and make an informed decision as to whether quantitative or qualitative evaluation is needed and feasible. Stakeholders' roles in in the process of identifying, prioritising, evaluating and interpreting potential consequences should be explicitly addressed within planning and revisited during and after implementation.

Project description:BackgroundResearch priority setting (RPS) studies are necessary to close the significant gap between the scientific evidence produced and the evidence stakeholders need. Their findings can make resource allocation in research more efficient. However, no general framework for conducting an RPS study among public health stakeholders exists. RPS studies in public health are rare and no such study has been previously conducted and published in Germany. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which research topics in public health are prioritised by relevant stakeholders in Germany.MethodsOur RPS study consisted of a scoping stage and a Delphi stage each split into two rounds. Firstly, we invited members of the German Public Health Association to gather expert insights during two initial workshops. Next, we defined the relevant stakeholder groups and recruited respondents. Thereafter, we collected research topics and assessment criteria with the respondents in the first Delphi round and aggregated the responses through content analysis. Finally, we asked the respondents to rate the research topics with the assessment criteria in the second Delphi round.ResultsIn total, 94 out of the 140 invited public health organisations nominated 230 respondents for the Delphi study of whom almost 90% participated in both Delphi rounds. We compiled a comprehensive list of 76 research topics that were rated and ranked by several assessment criteria. We split the research topics into two types, substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics respectively, to ensure the comparability among the research topics. In both types of research topics-substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics-the respective top five ranked research topics hardly differed between public health researchers and public health practitioners. However, clear differences exist in the priority ranking of many (non-top priority) research topics between the stakeholder groups.ConclusionsThis research demonstrates that it is possible, with limited resources, to prioritise research topics for public health at the national level involving a wide range of pertinent stakeholders. The results can be used by research funding institutions to initiate calls for research projects with an increased relevance for health and/or scientific progress.

Dataset Information

Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas.

Publications

Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets