Dataset Information

User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform decision-making in health, education, social care and environmental protection. However, decision makers still experience barriers to using reviews, including not knowing how findings might translate to their own contexts, and lack of collaboration with systematic review authors. The TRANSFER approach is a novel method that aims to support review authors to systematically and transparently collaborate with stakeholders to consider context and the transferability of review findings from the beginning of the review process. Such collaboration is intended to improve the usefulness and relevance of review findings for decision makers.

Objectives

We aim to explore the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide, and in doing so gain a better understanding of the role and perceived value of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews for informed decision-making.

Methods

We conducted four user tests of groups using the guide, organized around simulated meetings between review authors and stakeholders. Review authors led the meeting using the TRANSFER approach conversation guide. We audio-recorded and observed the meetings, collected feedback forms and conducted semi-structured interviews with review authors following the meeting. We analysed the data using framework analysis to examine the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide and of stakeholder engagement more generally.

Results

Seventeen participants in four user groups participated in the user tests. Most participants were generally positive toward the structured approach using the conversation guide, and felt it would be useful in systematic review projects. We observed examples of misunderstanding of the terminology included in the guide, and received multiple suggestions for how to make the conversation guide more user friendly. We observed numerous challenges related to the hypothetical nature of a user test, including lack of familiarity with the review question/topic among participants and lack of preparation for the meeting.

Conclusions

Review authors and stakeholders are positive toward using a structured approach to guide collaboration within the context of a systematic review. The TRANSFER conversation guide helps participants to discuss the review question and context in a structured way. Such structured collaboration could help to improve the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews for decision making by improving the review question, inclusion criteria and consideration of transferability of review findings. The conversation guide needs to be modified to improve user experience. Further research is needed to explore stakeholder collaboration and the use of the TRANSFER conversation guide in systematic review processes.

SUBMITTER: Munthe-Kaas H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9577259 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach.

Munthe-Kaas Heather H Nøkleby Heid H Rosenbaum Sarah S

Campbell systematic reviews 20221017 4

<h4>Background</h4>Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform decision-making in health, education, social care and environmental protection. However, decision makers still experience barriers to using reviews, including not knowing how findings might translate to their own contexts, and lack of collaboration with systematic review authors. The TRANSFER approach is a novel method that aims to support review authors to systematically and transparently collaborate with stakeholders to cons ...[more]

PMID: 36908834

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionStakeholder engagement remains scarce in basic brain research. However, it can greatly improve the relevance of investigations and accelerate the translation of study findings to policy. The Lifebrain consortium investigated risk and protective factors influencing brain health using cognition, lifestyle and imaging data from European cohorts. Stakeholder activities of Lifebrain-organized in a separate work package-included organizing stakeholder events, investigating public perceptions of brain health and dissemination. Here, we describe the experiences of researchers and stakeholders regarding stakeholder engagement in the Lifebrain project.MethodsStakeholder engagement in Lifebrain was evaluated through surveys among researchers and stakeholders and stakeholders' feedback at stakeholder events through evaluation forms. Survey data were analysed using a simple content analysis approach, and results from evaluation forms were summarized after reviewing the frequency of responses.ResultsConsortium researchers and stakeholders experienced the engagement activities as meaningful and relevant. Researchers highlighted that it made the research and research processes more visible and contributed to new networks, optimized data collection on brain health perceptions and the production of papers and provided insights into stakeholder views. Stakeholders found research activities conducted in the stakeholder engagement work package to be within their field of interest and research results relevant to their work. Researchers identified barriers to stakeholder engagement, including lack of time, difficulties in identifying relevant stakeholders, and challenges in communicating complex scientific issues in lay language and maintaining relationships with stakeholders over time. Stakeholders identified barriers such as lack of budget, limited resources in their organization, time constraints and insufficient communication between researchers and stakeholders.ConclusionStakeholder engagement in basic brain research can greatly benefit researchers and stakeholders alike. Its success is conditional on dedicated human and financial resources, clear communication, transparent mutual expectations and clear roles and responsibilities.Public contributionPatient organizations, research networks, policymakers and members of the general public were involved in engagement and research activities throughout the project duration.

Project description:Introduction/objectivesThe engagement of patients and other stakeholders is a critical element in the design of patient-centered outcomes research studies. However, methodology for scalable engagement in research management particularly activities such as operationalization of principles and setting of priorities is not well-developed. The objective of this study is to describe a novel approach for scalable stakeholder engagement in research aligned with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) engagement principles, which was evaluated in a national clinical data research network.Materials and methodsPatient, patient advocate, clinician, and researcher stakeholders were recruited from clinical sites, as well as social media sites related to the 3 conditions of focus, heart failure, obesity, and Kawasaki disease. The engagement strategy was designed, implemented, and mapped to the PCORI engagement principles. Evaluation included internal assessment and quantitative measures of online engagement.ResultsWe operationalized the PCORI principles with 12 stakeholder engagement strategies and convened stakeholder advisory boards and online research prioritization panels to determine research priorities in a rigorous, deliberative process. A total of 46 advisors (20 patients) and 339 panelists (159 patients) actively participated. There were not significant differences between patients and clinicians in level of online engagement. Nonetheless, while patients reported a slightly greater challenge with following online discussion, they overall had a more favorable opinion about use of the online format.Discussion/conclusionAn efficient way to engage large numbers of representative stakeholders in research is a necessary first step to assure the public of trustworthy use of data networks for health research. This paper describes a comprehensive approach to engagement in patient-centered outcomes research management that informs ongoing development of rigorous methodologies in this area.

Project description:Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in health research is gaining increased attention and acceptance worldwide. Reliable measurements are crucial to accurately assess, monitor, and evaluate patient involvement efforts in research. The Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) measures meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement in research. This study focuses on three primary objectives: (1) translation of the PEIRS-22 from English to Danish, followed by linguistic validation and cultural adaptation; (2) assessing the applicability of the Danish PEIRS-22; and (3) focus group interviews to explore the user experiences of PPI. A three-phase multi-method study was conducted. In phase one, the PEIRS-22 was translated, linguistically validated and culturally adapted to Danish. In phase two individuals from three distinct patient cancer advisory boards responded to the Danish version of PEIRS-22 to assess its applicability. Three focus group interviews were conducted in phase three, involving individuals from three patient cancer advisory boards. The translation process resulted in a Danish version of PEIRS-22, conceptually and culturally equivalent to the English version. Overall, among individuals of the three advisory boards (n = 15) the applicability was found to be satisfactory, with no missing data and all items completed. The total PEIRS-22 score among the three advisory boards was 85.2 out of a possible 100, with higher scores indicating greater meaningful involvement. A nested sample of the three patient cancer advisory boards (n = 9) participated in focus group interviews. The analysis yielded four themes: (1) The Danish PEIRS-22 captured the intended cultural meaning and contributed to self-reflection, (2) Internal motivation is a driver for involvement (3), Involvement brought a personal sense of empowerment and (4) Meaningful involvement collaborations are fostered by a trustful atmosphere. The PEIRS-22 questionnaire has been translated, linguistically validated, and culturally adapted into Danish. We propose that the PEIRS-22 is now ready for use in Danish populations. This study provides a Danish version of the questionnaire that can be used to develop patient-centred practices and foster meaningful involvement and collaborations between patients and researchers in the field of cancer research in Denmark. Personal benefits of participating in PPI can vary, and we recommend using PEIRS-22 in conjunction with a qualitative approach to better explore perspectives on meaningful involvement. The study was registered prospectively on October 22, 2022, by the Danish Data Protection Agency (jr. nr. P-2022-528).

Project description:BackgroundService user and stakeholder engagement have been widely considered as key aspects in translating knowledge into realistic policies and practices. However, there is a paucity of accumulative evidence about service user and stakeholder engagements in maternal and newborn health (MNH) research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Therefore, we aim to systematically review the existing literature that includes service user and stakeholder engagement in maternal and newborn health research in low- and middle-income countries.Materials and methodsThe design of this protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-P) checklist. We will systematically run the search in PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Science Direct, and CINAHL to obtain relevant peer-reviewed literature published between January 1990 and March 2023. The list of extracted references will be screened by applying the study inclusion criteria, and eligible studies will be processed for further evaluation before being included in the review. The quality of the selected study will be assessed using the critical appraisal skills program (CASP) checklists and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) checklist. A narrative synthesis will be used to synthesised results from all the included studies.Discussion and conclusionTo the best of our knowledge, this systematic review will be the first synthesised evidence on service user and stakeholder engagement in maternal and newborn health research in low- and middle-income countries. The study highlights the importance of service user and stakeholder roles in designing, implementing, and evaluating maternal and newborn health interventions in resource-poor settings. The evidence from this review is expected to be useful for national and international researchers/stakeholders for practising meaningful and effective ways of engaging users and stakeholders in maternal and newborn health research and related activities. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022314613.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2016, the Gratuité policy was initiated by the Government of Burkina Faso to remove user fees for maternal, newborn, and child Health (MNCH) services. Since its inception, there has not been any systematic capture of experiences of stakeholders as it relates to the policy. Our objective was to understand the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders regarding the implementation of the Gratuité policy.MethodsWe used key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to engage national and sub-national stakeholders in the Centre and Hauts-Bassin regions. Participants included policymakers, civil servants, researchers, non-governmental organizations in charge of monitoring the policy, skilled health personnel, health facility managers, and women who used MNCH services before and after the policy implementation. Topic guides aided sessions, which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used for data synthesis.ResultsThere were five key themes emerging. First, majority of stakeholders have a positive perception of the Gratuité policy. Its implementation approach is deemed to have strengths including government leadership, multi-stakeholder involvement, robust internal capacity, and external monitoring. However, collateral shortage of financial and human resources, misuse of services, delays in reimbursement, political instability and health system shocks were highlighted as concerns that compromise the government's objective of achieving universal health coverage (UHC). However, many beneficiaries were satisfied at the point of use of MNHC services, though Gratuité did not always mean free to the service users. Broadly, there was consensus that the Gratuité policy has contributed to improvements in health-seeking behavior, access, and utilization of services, especially for children. However, the reported higher utilization is leading to some perceived increased workload and altered health worker attitude.ConclusionsThere is a general perception that the Gratuité policy is achieving what it set out to do, which is to increase access to care by removing financial barriers. While stakeholders recognized the intention and value of the Gratuité policy, and many beneficiaries were satisfied at the point of use, inefficiencies in its implementation undermines progress. As the country moves towards the goal of realizing UHC, reliable investment in the Gratuité policy is needed.

Dataset Information

User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets