Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: A protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects

Research Involvement and Engagement

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Pollock, Alex ^a   Campbell, Pauline ^a   Struthers, Caroline ^b   Synnot, Anneliese ^c,d   Nunn, Jack ^c   Hill, Sophie ^c   Goodare, Heather ^e   Watts, Chris ^f   Morley, Richard ^g  

^a GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^e Edinburgh   (United Kingdom)

^f Learning and Support Manager   (United Kingdom)

^g NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consumer; Evidence synthesis; Involvement; Patient; Public; Stakeholder; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

EID: 85024396251     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20567529     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, Graham E, Thomas A, Sprung J, Morris C, Russell DJ. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37:1390–400.
2. Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16:323–37.
3. INVOLVE. Exploring the impact of public involvement on the quality of research: examples. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2013. http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/invoNETexamples2013.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
4. Serrano-Aguilar P, Trujillo-Martin MM, Ramos-Goni JM, Mahtani-Chugani V, Perestelo-Perez L, Posada-de la Paz M. Patient involvement in health research: a contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69:920–5.
5. Cochrane Consumer Network. Cochrane Consumer Network Structure and Function Review. 2015. http://consumers.cochrane.org/ccnet-structure-and-function-review. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
6. Boote J, Wong R, Booth A. ‘Talking the talk or walking the walk?’ A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009. Health Expect. 2015;18:44–57.
7. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Strategy for patient-oriented research (SPOR)-patient engagement. Ottawa; 2014. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
8. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). A model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research. Canberra; 2005. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/r22. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
9. Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e001220.
10. Horey D. Consumer involvement in the Cochrane Collaboration: Background Paper (Strategic Session). Auckland; 2010. https://consumers.cochrane.org/sites/consumers.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/Consumer%20Involvement%20in%20the% 20Cochrane%20Collaboration%20Background%20paper.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
11. Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2011;102:105–16.
12. Bastian H. The power of sharing knowledge: Consumer participation in the Cochrane Collaboration. In UK Consumer Centre. Cochrane Collaboration; 1994.
13. Gartlehner G, Flamm M. Is the Cochrane collaboration prepared for the era of patient-centred outcomes research? Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:ED000054.
14. Morley R, Norman G, Golder S, Griffith P. A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane. Res Involvement Engagement. 2016;2:36.
15. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, Brito JP, Boehmer K, Hasan R, Firwana B, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:89.
16. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1:28.
17. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Barroso J. Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Res Sch. 2006;13:29.
18. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.
19. Pham MT, Rajic A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85.
20. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.
21. Jepson R, Harris F, MacGillivray S, Kearney N, Roaw-Dewar N. A review of the effectiveness of interventions, approaches and models at individual, community and population level that are aimed at changing health outcomes through changing knowledge attitudes and behaviour. 2007.
22. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension. Syst Rev. 2016;5:27.
23. Harris J, Croot L, Thompson J, Springett J. How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70:207–14.
24. Cochrane Consumer Network. http://consumers.cochrane.org/healthcare-users-cochrane. Accessed 27 Sept 2016.
25. INVOLVE. Public involvement in systematic reviews: Supplement to the briefing notes for researchers. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012. http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/INVOLVEPublicInvolvementSystematicReviews2012.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
26. Evidence-informed policy and practice (EPPI) centre: what is a systematic review? http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=67. Accessed 27 Sept 2016.
27. Pollock A, Campbell P, Deery R, Fleming M, Rankin J, Sloan G, Cheyne H. A systematic review of evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. J Adv Nurs. 2017;Jan 10. doi:10.1111/jan.13253. [Epub ahead of print].
28. Critical appraisal skills programme (CASP): Making sense of evidence. http://www.casp-uk.net/. Accessed 27 Sept 2016.
29. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17:637–50.
30. Coon JT, Gwernan-Jones R, Moore D, Richardson M, Shotton C, Pritchard W, Morris C, Stein K, Ford T. End-user involvement in a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research of non-pharmacological interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder delivered in school settings: reflections on the impacts and challenges. Health Expect. 2016;19:1084–97.
31. Dudley L, Gamble C, Allam A, Bell P, Buck D, Goodare H, Hanley B, Preston J, Walker A, Williamson P, Young B. A little more conversation please? Qualitative study of researchers‘and patients’ interview accounts of training for patient and public involvement in clinical trials. Trials. 2015;16:190.