Suppr超能文献

利益相关者参与系统评价:范围综述。

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review.

机构信息

Nursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK.

EQUATOR Network, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.

出版信息

Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 24;7(1):208. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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 ½ 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.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: 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.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

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 .

摘要

背景

越来越多的人认识到让利益相关者(包括患者、公众、卫生专业人员等)参与系统评价是一种良好的做法,但关于如何最好地进行这种做法的证据有限。我们旨在记录与系统评价中利益相关者参与相关的证据基础,并利用这些证据来描述利益相关者如何参与系统评价。

方法

我们按照已发表的方案进行了范围界定审查。我们使用逐步搜索方法,结合手动搜索,在多个电子数据库中进行了搜索(2010-2016 年)。两名作者独立筛选并讨论了前 500 篇摘要,在澄清选择标准后,又筛选了另外 500 篇。筛选决策的一致性为 97%,因此仅由一名审查员进行筛选。完成了预先计划的数据提取,并对所涉及的参与方法的描述的全面性进行了判断。对于被认为具有最全面描述的论文,还完成了额外的数据提取。三位利益相关者代表是本系统评价的共同作者。

结果

我们共纳入了 291 篇利益相关者参与系统评价的论文。其中 30%涉及患者和/或照顾者。32%来自美国,26%来自英国,10%来自加拿大。10%(32 篇)被认为提供了对利益相关者参与方法的全面描述。69%(22/32)亲自邀请人们参与;22%(7/32)向公众宣传机会。81%(26/32)进行了 1 到 20 次面对面会议,其中 83%的会议举行了≤4 次会议。会议持续 1 小时至半天。19%(6/32)使用德尔菲法,最常用的是三个电子轮次。10/32 报告了伦理批准的详细情况。8/32 的系统评价报告支付了与系统评价相关人员的费用。

讨论/结论:我们发现了大量(291 篇)报告利益相关者参与系统评价的论文,但报告的质量普遍较差。从被认为对系统评价中利益相关者参与的最佳描述的一组论文中获取的信息,提供了利益相关者参与系统评价的不同方式的示例。这些示例可以说是目前提供的关于未来系统评价中利益相关者参与规划的最佳信息,以提供信息并指导决策。该证据已用于开发在线学习资源。

系统评价注册

本系统评价的方案于 2017 年 4 月 21 日在网上发布。出版物参考:Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: 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。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3016/6260873/0a52ffb11f67/13643_2018_852_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验