Effa Emmanuel E, Oduwole Olabisi, Schoonees Anel, Hohlfeld Ameer, Durao Solange, Kredo Tamara, Mbuagbaw Lawrence, Meremikwu Martin, Ongolo-Zogo Pierre, Wiysonge Charles, Young Taryn
Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.
Cochrane Nigeria, Calabar Institute of Tropical Disease Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria.
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jul 26;4(4):e001615. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615. eCollection 2019.
Priority setting to identify topical and context relevant questions for systematic reviews involves an explicit, iterative and inclusive process. In resource-constrained settings of low-income and middle-income countries, priority setting for health related research activities ensures efficient use of resources. In this paper, we critically reflect on the approaches and specific processes adopted across three regions of Africa, present some of the outcomes and share the lessons learnt while carrying out these activities. Priority setting for new systematic reviews was conducted between 2016 and 2018 across three regions in Africa. Different approaches were used: Multimodal approach (Central Africa), Modified Delphi approach (West Africa) and Multilevel stakeholder discussion (Southern-Eastern Africa). Several questions that can feed into systematic reviews have emerged from these activities. We have learnt that collaborative subregional efforts using an integrative approach can effectively lead to the identification of region specific priorities. Systematic review workshops including discussion about the role and value of reviews to inform policy and research agendas were a useful part of the engagements. This may also enable relevant stakeholders to contribute towards the priority setting process in meaningful ways. However, certain shared challenges were identified, including that emerging priorities may be overlooked due to differences in burden of disease data and differences in language can hinder effective participation by stakeholders. We found that face-to-face contact is crucial for success and follow-up engagement with stakeholders is critical in driving acceptance of the findings and planning future progress.
确定系统评价的主题和与背景相关的问题的优先级设定涉及一个明确、迭代和包容的过程。在低收入和中等收入国家资源有限的情况下,确定与健康相关的研究活动的优先级可确保资源的有效利用。在本文中,我们批判性地反思了非洲三个地区采用的方法和具体过程,介绍了一些成果,并分享了开展这些活动时学到的经验教训。2016年至2018年期间,在非洲三个地区开展了新系统评价的优先级设定工作。采用了不同的方法:多模式方法(中非)、改良德尔菲法(西非)和多层次利益相关者讨论(东南非)。这些活动产生了一些可纳入系统评价的问题。我们了解到,采用综合方法进行次区域合作努力可以有效地确定区域特定的优先事项。包括讨论评价对为政策和研究议程提供信息的作用和价值的系统评价研讨会是这些活动的一个有益组成部分。这也可能使相关利益相关者以有意义的方式为优先级设定过程做出贡献。然而,也发现了一些共同的挑战,包括由于疾病负担数据的差异可能会忽视新出现的优先事项,以及语言差异可能会阻碍利益相关者的有效参与。我们发现,面对面接触对于成功至关重要,与利益相关者的后续互动对于推动对研究结果的接受和规划未来进展至关重要。