...
首页> 外文期刊>Systematic Reviews >Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review
【24h】

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

机译:利益相关者参与系统审查:范围界定审查

获取原文
           

摘要

There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤?4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1?h to ??day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .
机译:越来越多的人意识到,让利益相关者(包括患者,公众,卫生专业人员和其他人员)参与系统的审查是一种好习惯,但是关于如何最好地做到这一点的证据有限。我们旨在记录与利益相关者参与系统审查有关的证据基础,并使用该证据描述利益相关者如何参与系统审查。根据已发布的协议,我们进行了范围界定审查。我们使用逐步搜索方法,并以手工搜索为补充,搜索了多个电子数据库(2010-2016年)。两位作者独立筛选并讨论了前500个摘要,在明确选择标准后,又筛选了500个摘要。筛选决定的一致性为97%,因此筛选仅由一名审阅者完成。预先计划的数据提取已完成,并判断了参与方法描述的全面性。完成了对被认为具有最全面描述的论文的其他数据提取。三位利益相关者代表是该系统评价的共同作者。我们纳入了291篇论文,其中利益相关者参与了系统的审查。 30%的患者和/或护理人员参与其中。 32%来自美国,26%来自英国,10%来自加拿大。评选出百分之十(32条评论)可提供对利益相关者参与方法的全面描述。百分之六十九(22/32)亲自邀请人们参与其中; 22%(7/32)的人向大众宣传了机会。百分之八十一(26/32)举行了1至20次面对面的会议,其中83%举行了≤4次的会议。会议持续了1个小时至一天。百分之十九(6/32)使用Delphi方法,最常涉及三轮电子回合。 10/32报告了道德批准的详细信息。据报道,费用是支付给参与8/32系统评价的人员的。我们确定了相对较多(291)的报告利益相关者参与系统审查的论文,但是报告的质量通常很差。来自被认为能够最好地描述利益相关者参与系统评价的一部分论文的信息,提供了利益相关者参与系统评价的不同方式的示例。可以说,这些例子目前可以提供最佳的可用信息,以指导和指导未来利益相关者参与未来系统审查的计划。该证据已用于开发在线学习资源。该系统评价的方案已于2017年4月21日发布。出版物参考:Pollock A,Campbell P,Struthers C,Synnot A,Nunn J,Hill S,Goodare H,Watts C,Morley R:利益相关者参与系统评价:a系统评价方法,结果和效果的方案。研究参与度2017,3:9。 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号