scholarly journals What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

2022 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey Tan ◽  
Sumanth Kumbagere Nagraj ◽  
Mona Nasser ◽  
Tarang Sharma ◽  
Tanja Kuchenmüller

Abstract Background This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas. Main body We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area. Conclusion Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017737 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedyeh Ziai ◽  
Rujun Zhang ◽  
An-Wen Chan ◽  
Nav Persaud

ObjectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.DesignAudit of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals:Journal of the American Medical Association,The British Medical Journal,Lancet,Annals of Internal Medicineand theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.Main findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.ConclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romy Lauche ◽  
Holger Cramer ◽  
Winfried Häuser ◽  
Gustav Dobos ◽  
Jost Langhorst

Objectives.This systematic overview of reviews aimed to summarize evidence and methodological quality from systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).Methods.The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were screened from their inception to Sept 2013 to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of CAM interventions for FMS. Methodological quality of reviews was rated using the AMSTAR instrument.Results.Altogether 25 systematic reviews were found; they investigated the evidence of CAM in general, exercised-based CAM therapies, manipulative therapies, Mind/Body therapies, acupuncture, hydrotherapy, phytotherapy, and homeopathy. Methodological quality of reviews ranged from lowest to highest possible quality. Consistently positive results were found for tai chi, yoga, meditation and mindfulness-based interventions, hypnosis or guided imagery, electromyogram (EMG) biofeedback, and balneotherapy/hydrotherapy. Inconsistent results concerned qigong, acupuncture, chiropractic interventions, electroencephalogram (EEG) biofeedback, and nutritional supplements. Inconclusive results were found for homeopathy and phytotherapy. Major methodological flaws included missing details on data extraction process, included or excluded studies, study details, and adaption of conclusions based on quality assessment.Conclusions.Despite a growing body of scientific evidence of CAM therapies for the management of FMS systematic reviews still show methodological flaws limiting definite conclusions about their efficacy and safety.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J C Grindlay ◽  
Tim R C Davis ◽  
Donna Kennedy ◽  
Debbie Larson ◽  
Dominic Furniss ◽  
...  

Objective To report our recommended methodology for extracting and confirming published research uncertainties during a broad scope Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) with the James Lind Alliance. Setting This process was completed in the UK as part of the PSP for "Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist", comprising of health professionals, patients and carers. Design and Data Extraction We applied best practice in systematic review methodology and reporting, including independent screening and data extraction by multiple researchers and use of a PRISMA flowchart, alongside steering group consensus processes. Data Sources Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Protocols, NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) Guidelines, and SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) Guidelines. Selection Criteria Selection of research uncertainties was guided by the scope of the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist PSP which focused on common hand conditions routinely treated by hand specialists, including hand surgeons and hand therapists limited to identifying questions concerning the results of intervention, and not the basic science or epidemiology behind disease." Results Of 2358 records identified after duplicate extraction which entered the screening process, 186 records were presented to the PSP steering group for eligibility assessment; 79 were deemed within scope and included for the purpose of research uncertainty extraction (45 full Cochrane Reviews, 18 Cochrane Review protocols, 16 Guidelines). These yielded 89 research uncertainties, which were compared to the stakeholder survey, and added to the longlist where necessary; before derived uncertainties were checked against non-Cochrane published systematic reviews. Conclusions In carrying out this work, beyond reporting on output of the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist PSP, we detail the methodology and processes we hope can inform and facilitate the work of future PSPs and other evidence reviews, especially those with a broader scope beyond a single disease or condition.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175346662097602
Author(s):  
Malahat Khalili ◽  
Maryam Chegeni ◽  
Sara Javadi ◽  
Mehrdad Farokhnia ◽  
Hamid Sharifi ◽  
...  

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide, but safe and effective treatment options remain unavailable. Numerous systematic reviews of varying qualities have tried to summarize the evidence on the available therapeutic interventions for COVID-19. This overview of reviews aims to provide a succinct summary of the findings of systematic reviews on different pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic interventions for COVID-19. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO database of publications on COVID-19 from 1 December 2019 through to 11 June 2020 for peer-reviewed systematic review studies that reported on potential pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Quality assessment was completed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) measure. Results: Out of 816 non-duplicate studies, 45 were included in the overview. Antiviral and antibiotic agents, corticosteroids, and anti-malarial agents were the most common drug classes used to treat COVID-19; however, there was no direct or strong evidence to support their efficacy. Oxygen therapy and ventilatory support was the most common non-pharmacological supportive care. The quality of most of the included reviews was rated as low or critically low. Conclusion: This overview of reviews demonstrates that although some therapeutic interventions may be beneficial to specific subgroups of COVID-19 patients, the available data are insufficient to strongly recommend any particular treatment option to be used at a population level. Future systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments should adhere to the recommended systematic review methodologies and ensure that promptness and comprehensiveness are balanced. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt

AbstractTo promote social justice and equity, global health research should meaningfully engage communities throughout projects: from setting agendas onwards. But communities, especially those that are considered disadvantaged or marginalised, rarely have a say in the priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance and resources on how to share power with communities in health research priority-setting. This paper presents an “ethical toolkit” for academic researchers and their community partners to use to design priority-setting processes that meaningfully include the communities impacted by their projects. An empirical reflective equilibrium approach was employed to develop the toolkit. Conceptual work articulated ethical considerations related to sharing power in g0l0o0bal health research priority-setting, developed guidance on how to address them, and created an initial version of the toolkit. Empirical work (51 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group, 2 case studies in India and the Philippines) conducted in 2018 and 2019 then tested those findings against information from global health research practice. The final ethical toolkit is a reflective project planning aid. It consists of 4 worksheets (Worksheet 1- Selecting Partners; Worksheet 2- Deciding to Partner; Worksheet 3- Deciding to Engage with the Wider Community; Worksheet 4- Designing Priority-setting) and a Companion Document detailing how to use them. Reflecting on and discussing the questions in Worksheets 1 to 4 before priority-setting will help deliver priority-setting processes that share power with communities and projects with research topics and questions that more accurately reflect their healthcare and system needs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn Hendricks ◽  
Ingrid Eshun-Wilson ◽  
Anke Rohwer

Abstract Background People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) struggle with the challenges of living with a chronic disease and integrating antiretroviral treatment (ART) and care into their daily lives. The aims of this study were as follows: (1) to undertake the first mega-aggregation of qualitative evidence syntheses using the methods of framework synthesis and (2) make sense of existing qualitative evidence syntheses that explore the barriers and facilitators of adherence to antiretroviral treatment, linkage to care and retention in care for PLHIV to identify research gaps. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search and did all screening, data extraction and critical appraisal independently and in duplicate. We used the Kaufman HIV Behaviour Change model (Kaufman et al., 2014) as a framework to synthesise the findings using the mega-aggregative framework synthesis approach, which consists of 8 steps: (1) identify a clearly defined review question and objectives, (2) identify a theoretical framework or model, (3) decide on criteria for considering reviews for inclusion, (4) conduct searching and screening, (5) conduct quality appraisal of the included studies, (6) data extraction and categorisation, (7) present and synthesise the findings, and (8) transparent reporting. We evaluated systematic reviews up to July 2018 and assessed methodological quality, across reviews, using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews. Results We included 33 systematic reviews from low, middle- and high-income countries, which reported on 1,111,964 PLHIV. The methodological quality of included reviews varied considerably. We identified 544 unique third-order concepts from the included systematic reviews, which were reclassified into 45 fourth-order themes within the individual, interpersonal, community, institutional and structural levels of the Kaufman HIV Behaviour Change model. We found that the main influencers of linkage, adherence and retention behaviours were psychosocial and personal characteristics—perceptions of ART, desires, fears, experiences of HIV and ART, coping strategies and mental health issues—interwoven with other factors on the interpersonal, community, institutional and structural level. Using this approach, we found interdependence between factors influencing ART linkage, retention and adherence and identified the need for qualitative evidence that explores, in greater depth, the complex relationships between structural factors and adherence, sociodemographic factors such as community violence and retention, and the experiences of growing up with HIV in low- and middle-income countries—specifically in children, youth, women and key populations. Conclusions This is the first mega-aggregation framework synthesis, or synthesis of qualitative evidence syntheses using the methods of framework synthesis at the overview level. We found the novel method to be a transparent and efficient method for assessing the quality and making sense of existing qualitative systematic reviews. Systematic review registration The protocol of this overview was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017078155) on 17 December 2017.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000920
Author(s):  
Dimitris Challoumas ◽  
Neal L Millar

ObjectiveTo critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment.Data sourcesMedline from inception to June 2020.Study eligibilityAll SRs of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of any intervention(s) on any location of tendinopathy.Data extraction and synthesisIncluded SRs were appraised with the use of a 12-item tool devised by the authors arising from the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and other relevant guidance. Subgroup analyses were performed based on impact factor (IF) of publishing journals and date of publication.ResultsA total of 57 SRs were included published in 38 journals between 2006 and 2020. The most commonly used risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment tool and strength of evidence assessment tool were the Cochrane Collaboration RoB tool and the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group tool, respectively. The mean score on the appraisal tool was 46.5% (range 0%–100%). SRs published in higher IF journals (>4.7) were associated with a higher mean score than those in lower IF journals (mean difference 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004). The mean score of the 10 most recently published SRs was similar to that of the first 10 published SRs (mean difference 8.3%±13.7%, p=0.54). Only 23 SRs (40%) used the results of their RoB assessment in data synthesis and more than half (n=30; 50%) did not assess the strength of evidence of their results. Only 12 SRs (21%) assessed their strength of evidence appropriately.ConclusionsIn light of the poor presentation of evidence identified by our review, we provide recommendations to increase transparency and reproducibility in future SRs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dina Sweed ◽  
Eman Abdelsameea ◽  
Esraa A. Khalifa ◽  
Heba Abdallah ◽  
Heba Moaz ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The pandemic of COVID19 which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first described in China as an unexplained pneumonia transmitted by respiratory droplets. Gastrointestinal (GI) and liver injury associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported as an early or sole disease manifestation, mainly outside China. The exact mechanism and incidence of GI and liver involvement are not well elucidated. Main body We conducted a PubMed search for all articles written in the English language about SARS-CoV-2 affecting the GI and liver. Following data extraction, 590 articles were selected. In addition to respiratory droplets, SARS-CoV-2 may reach the GI system through the fecal-oral route, saliva, and swallowing of nasopharyngeal fluids, while breastmilk and blood transmission were not implicated. Moreover, GI infection may act as a septic focus for viral persistence and transmission to the liver, appendix, and brain. In addition to the direct viral cytopathic effect, the mechanism of injury is multifactorial and is related to genetic and demographic variations. The most frequently reported GI symptoms are diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and bleeding. However, liver infection is generally discovered during laboratory testing or a post-mortem. Radiological imaging is the gold standard in diagnosing COVID-19 patients and contributes to understanding the mechanism of extra-thoracic involvement. Medications should be prescribed with caution, especially in chronic GI and liver patients. Conclusion GI manifestations are common in COVID-19 patients. Special care should be paid for high-risk patients, older males, and those with background liver disease.


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 379-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jones ◽  
Jaimin Bhatt ◽  
Jonathan Avery ◽  
Andreas Laupacis ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
...  

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.


2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802110302
Author(s):  
Vanesa Pérez-Martínez ◽  
Jorge Marcos-Marcos ◽  
Ariadna Cerdán-Torregrosa ◽  
Erica Briones-Vozmediano ◽  
Belen Sanz-Barbero ◽  
...  

Background: Hegemonic masculinity has been recognized as contributing to the perpetration of different forms of gender-based violence (GBV). Abandoning hegemonic masculinities and promoting positive masculinities are both strategies used by interventions that foreground a “gender-transformative approach.” Preventing GBV among young people could be strengthened by engaging young men. In this article, we aim to systematically review the primary characteristics, methodological quality, and results of published evaluation studies of educational interventions that aim to prevent different forms of GBV through addressing hegemonic masculinities among young people. Main body: We conducted a systematic review of available literature (2008–2019) using Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, PsycInfo, the CINAHL Complete Database, and ERIC as well as Google scholar. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication was used for data extraction, and the quality of the selected studies was analyzed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. More than half of the studies were conducted in Africa ( n = 10/15) and many were randomized controlled trials ( n = 8/15). Most of the studies with quantitative and qualitative methodologies ( n = 12/15) reported a decrease in physical GBV and/or sexual violence perpetration/victimization ( n = 6/15). Longitudinal studies reported consistent results over time. Conclusions: Our results highlight the importance of using a gender-transformative approach in educational interventions to engage young people in critical thinking about hegemonic masculinity and to prevent GBV.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document