Evans Jennifer R, Gordon Iris, Azuara-Blanco Augusto, Bowen Michael, Braithwaite Tasanee, Crosby-Nwaobi Roxanne, Gichuhi Stephen, Hogg Ruth E, Li Tianjing, Minogue Virginia, Parker Roses, Rowe Fiona J, Shah Anupa, Virgili Gianni, Ramke Jacqueline, Lawrenson John G
Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences Queen's University Belfast Belfast UK.
International Centre for Eye Health, Department of Clinical Research London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine London UK.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2023 May 24;1(3):e12014. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12014. eCollection 2023 May.
Systematic reviews are important to inform decision-making for evidence-based health care and patient choice. Deciding which reviews should be prioritized is a key issue for decision-makers and researchers. Cochrane Eyes and Vision conducted a priority setting exercise for systematic reviews in eye health care.
We established a steering group including practitioners, patient organizations, and researchers. To identify potential systematic review questions, we searched global policy reports, research prioritization exercises, guidelines, systematic review databases, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). We grouped questions into separate condition lists and conducted a two-round online modified Delphi survey, including a ranking request. Participants in the survey were recruited through social media and the networks of the steering group.
In Round 1, 343 people ranked one or more of the condition lists. Participants were eye care practitioners (69%), researchers (37%), patients or carers (24%), research providers/funders (5%), or noneye health care practitioners (4%) and from all World Health Organization regions. Two hundred twenty-six people expressed interest in completing Round 2 and 160 of these (71%) completed the Round 2 survey. Reviews on cataract and refractive error, reviews relevant to children, and reviews on rehabilitation were considered to have an important impact on the magnitude of disease and equity. Narrative comments emphasized the need for reviews on access to eye health care, particularly for underserved groups, including people with intellectual disabilities.
A global group of stakeholders prioritized questions on the effective and equitable delivery of services for eye health care. When considering the impact of systematic reviews in terms of reducing the burden of eye conditions, equity is clearly an important criterion to consider in priority-setting exercises.
系统评价对于为循证医疗保健和患者选择提供决策依据非常重要。决定哪些评价应被优先考虑是决策者和研究人员面临的关键问题。Cochrane眼科与视力组针对眼科保健系统评价开展了一次确定优先事项的活动。
我们成立了一个指导小组，成员包括从业者、患者组织和研究人员。为了确定潜在的系统评价问题，我们检索了全球政策报告、研究优先排序活动、指南、系统评价数据库以及Cochrane图书馆（CENTRAL）。我们将问题分组形成单独的病症清单，并进行了两轮在线改良德尔菲调查，包括排序要求。调查参与者通过社交媒体和指导小组的网络招募。
在第一轮中，343人对一个或多个病症清单进行了排序。参与者包括眼科保健从业者（69%）、研究人员（37%）、患者或护理人员（24%）、研究提供者/资助者（5%）或非眼科保健从业者（4%），来自世界卫生组织的所有区域。226人表示有兴趣完成第二轮，其中160人（71%）完成了第二轮调查。关于白内障和屈光不正的评价、与儿童相关的评价以及关于康复的评价被认为对疾病严重程度和公平性有重要影响。叙述性评论强调需要对获得眼科保健服务的情况进行评价，特别是针对包括智障人士在内的服务不足群体。
一组全球利益相关者对眼科保健服务有效且公平提供方面的问题进行了优先排序。在考虑系统评价对减轻眼部疾病负担的影响时，公平显然是确定优先事项活动中要考虑的一个重要标准。
