Suppr超能文献

一种结构化方法,用于让利益相关者参与公共卫生系统评价主题的优先级排序。

A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health.

机构信息

Research Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology (BIPS), Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

出版信息

Int J Public Health. 2024 Aug 21;69:1606642. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2024.1606642. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop and apply a structured approach for prioritising topics for systematic reviews in public health, framed according to the readily applicable PICO format, which encourages the involvement of stakeholders' preferences in a transparent matter.

METHODS

We developed a multi-stage process, consisting of a scoping and two Delphi stages with web-based surveys and invited public health stakeholders in Switzerland to participate: First, respondents specified topics for different public health domains, which were reformulated in a PICO format by content analysis. Second, respondents rated the topics using five stakeholder-refined assessment criteria. Overall rankings were calculated to assess differences between stakeholder groups and rating criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 215 respondents suggested 728 topics altogether. The response rate in the two Delphi stages was 91.6% and 77.6%, respectively. Most top-rated review topics focused on the effectiveness of interventions providing education to different target groups, followed by interventions to increase access to specific healthcare services.

CONCLUSION

Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在制定并应用一种结构化方法,根据易于应用的 PICO 格式,优先考虑公共卫生系统评价的主题,该方法鼓励以透明的方式让利益相关者的偏好参与其中。

方法

我们制定了一个多阶段的流程,包括范围界定和两轮德尔菲调查,邀请了瑞士的公共卫生利益相关者参与:首先,受访者指定了不同公共卫生领域的主题,然后通过内容分析将这些主题重新表述为 PICO 格式。其次,受访者使用五个经过利益相关者修订的评估标准对主题进行评分。总体排名用于评估不同利益相关者群体和评分标准之间的差异。

结果

共有 215 名受访者总共提出了 728 个主题。两轮德尔菲调查的回复率分别为 91.6%和 77.6%。评价最高的综述主题大多集中在为不同目标群体提供教育干预措施的效果上,其次是增加特定医疗保健服务获取途径的干预措施。

结论

我们的方法鼓励利益相关者参与确定系统评价的优先事项,并突出了利益相关者之间以及各个标准之间的差异。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

5
PICO: What it is and what it is not.PICO:它是什么,以及它不是什么。
Nurse Educ Pract. 2021 Oct;56:103194. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103194. Epub 2021 Sep 2.
6
Identifying topics for future Cochrane Public Health reviews.确定未来Cochrane公共卫生系统评价的主题。
J Public Health (Oxf). 2022 Dec 1;44(4):e578-e581. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab287.
7
What are Delphi studies?什么是德尔菲研究?
Evid Based Nurs. 2020 Jul;23(3):68-69. doi: 10.1136/ebnurs-2020-103303. Epub 2020 May 19.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验