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: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:BackgroundCurrently the health research system in Lao PDR is fragmented and largely donor led. Capacity among national public health institutes is limited to select priority research questions for funding.ObjectiveThe objective of this capacity building and practice-oriented study is to describe the process and outcome of the first National Health Research Agenda for Lao PDR and how the agenda contributes to institutional capacity of the Ministry of Health, in order to contribute to evidence-informed public health policy making.MethodThis activity used a mixed-methods approach. The overall design is based on principles of the interactive Learning and Action approach and consists out of 6 phases: (1) identification of needs, (2) shared analysis and integration, (3) nation-wide prioritization of research domains, (4) exploring specific research questions, (5) prioritization of research avenues, (6) dialogue and planning for action. The process involved interviews with experts in health policy and research (n = 42), telephone-based survey with district, provincial and national health staff (n = 135), a two-round Delphi consultation with experts in health policy and research (n = 33), and a workshop with policymakers, researchers, international organisations and civil society (n = 45) were held to gather data and conduct shared analysis.Results11 research domains were identified and prioritised: Health-seeking behaviour; Health system research; Health service provision; Mother and child health (MCH); Sexual & reproductive health; Health education; Non-communicable diseases (NCDs); Irrational drug use; Communicable diseases (CDs); Road traffic accidents; Mental health. Within these domains over 200 unique research questions were identified.ConclusionOur approach led to a comprehensive, inclusive, public health agenda for Lao PDR to realise better informed health policies. Questions on the agenda are action-oriented, originating in a desire to understand the problem so that immediate improvements can be made. The agenda is used within the MoH as a tool to fund and approve research.

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