A five-step approach for stakeholder engagement in prioritisation and planning of environmental evidence syntheses Neal Haddaway, Sally Crowe

Environmental Evidence

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Land, Magnus ^a   Macura, Biljana ^a   Bernes, Claes ^a   Johansson, Sif ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Knowledge needs; Participation; Priority setting; Public review process; Question formulation; Review co design; Scoping; Stakeholder identification; Systematic map; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

EID: 85032035287     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20472382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13750-017-0104-0     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Haddaway NR, Pullin AS. The policy role of systematic reviews: past, present and future. Springer Sci Rev. 2014;2(1):179-83.
2. Pullin AS, Knight TM. Doing more good than harm - building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biol Conserv. 2009;142(5):931-4.
3. CEE. Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 4.2. CEE, 2013. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2017.
4. Cottrell E, Whitlock E, Kato E, Uhl S, Belinson S, Chang C, Hoomans T, Meltzer D, Noorani H, Robinson K et al: Defining the Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement in Systematic Reviews. Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm. Accessed 24 Jan 2017.
5. Keown K, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008;28(2):67-72.
6. Reed MS. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv. 2008;141(10):2417-31.
7. Schindler S, Livoreil B, Pinto IS, Araujo RM, Zulka KP, Pullin AS, Santamaria L, Kropik M, Fernandez-Mendez P, Wrbka T. The network biodiversity knowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments. Biodivers Conserv. 2016;25(7):1301-18.
8. Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, Patel K, Wong JB, Leslie LK, Lau J. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1692-701.
9. Rees R, Oliver SI. Stakeholder perspectives and participation in reviews. In: An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage Publications; 2012. p. 17-34.
10. Haddaway NR, Kohl C, da Rebelo Silva N, Schiemann J, Spök A, Stewart R, Sweet JB, Wilhelm R. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ Evid. 2017;6(1):11.
11. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, McElwee N, Guise JM, Santa J, Conway PH, Daudelin D, Morrato EH, Leslie LK. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):985-91.
12. Pullin AS, Stewart GB. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 2006;20(6):1647-56.
13. James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ Evid. 2016;5(1):7.
14. Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. Introduction to systematic reviews. 1st ed. London: Sage; 2012.
15. CEE Library. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/completed-reviews. Accessed 08 Sept 2017.
16. EviEM. http://www.eviem.se/en/. Accessed 21 Feb 2017.
17. Mistra. http://www.mistra.org/en/mistra.html. Accessed 21 Feb 2017.
18. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):28.
19. Oliver S, Dickson K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid Policy. 2016;12(2):235-59.
20. Leventon J, Fleskens L, Claringbould H, Schwilch G, Hessel R. An applied methodology for stakeholder identification in transdisciplinary research. Sustain Sci. 2016;11(5):763-75.
21. Schmeer K. Stakeholder analysis guidelines. In: Policy toolkit for strengthening health sector reform. Washington D.C.: US Agency for International Development; 2000. p. 1-33.
22. Macura B, Lönnstedt OM, Byström P, Airoldi L, Eriksson BK, Rudstam L, Støttrup J. What is the impact on fish recruitment of anthropogenic physical and structural habitat change in shallow nearshore areas in temperate systems? A systematic review protocol. Environ Evid. 2016;5:10.
23. James Lind Alliance. About priority setting partnerships. http://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/about-the-james-lind-alliance/about-psps.htm. Accessed 08 Jul 2017.
24. Cochrane methods. Plain language summaries of research priority setting methods. http://methods.cochrane.org/prioritysetting/plain-language-summaries-research-priority-setting-methods. Accessed 08 Jul 2017.
25. Bernes C. How are fluxes of greenhouse gases between boreal forest ecosystems and the atmosphere affected by uneven-aged forestry? Mistra EviEM Pilot Study PS1. EviEM. 2013. http://www.eviem.se/en/publications/pilot-studies/forest-management-affect-greenhouse-gases/. Accessed 16 Jan 2017.
26. Land M. What is the effect of pharmaceutical residues in water on aquatic biota? Mistra EviEM Pilot study PS2. EviEM. 2013. http://www.eviem.se/en/publications/pilot-studies/pharmaceutical-residues-in-water/. Accessed 16 Jan 2017.
27. Land M. Effects of nano- and microplastic particles on plankton and marine ecosystem functioning. An evidence overview. EviEM. 2015. http://www.eviem.se/en/publications/Evidence-overviews/Effects-of-nano - and-microplastic-particles/. Accessed 16 Jan 2017.
28. Land M, Miljand M. Biological control of mosquitoes using Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis: a pilot study of effects on target organisms, non-target organisms and humans. Mistra EviEM Pilot Study PS4. EviEM. 2014. http://www.eviem.se/en/publications/pilot-studies/biological-control-of-mosquitoes/. Accessed 16 Jan 2017.
29. Shehada A, Land M. What are the effects of plastic particles on growth and mortality of marine organisms? Mistra EviEM Pilot Study PS5. EviEM. 2014. http://www.eviem.se/en/publications/pilot-studies/the-effects-of-plastic-particles-in-seawater/. Accessed 17 Jan 2017.
30. Söderström B. Is thiamine deficiency a significant cause of declining bird populations in the Baltic Sea area? Mistra EviEM Pilot Study PS3. EviEM. 2013. http://www.eviem.se/en/publications/pilot-studies/thiamine-deficiency-and-bird-populations/. Accessed 17 Jan 2017.
31. EviEM: EviEM routines. Unpublished internal document. 2017.
32. Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 4th ed. Lanham: AltaMira Press; 2006.
33. Goodman LA. Snowball sampling. Annals Math Stat. 1961;32(1):148-70.
34. Koustas E, Lam J, Sutton P, Johnson PI, Atchley DS, Sen S, Robinson K, Axelrad DA, Woodruff TJ. The navigation guide-evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(10):1015-27.
35. Beronius A, Vandenberg LN. Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2015;16(4):273-87.
36. Whaley P, Halsall C, Agerstrand M, Aiassa E, Benford D, Bilotta G, Coggon D, Collins C, Dempsey C, Duarte-Davidson R, et al. Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: challenges, opportunities and recommendations. Environ Int. 2016;92-93:556-64.
37. Land M, deWit CA, Cousins IT, Herzke D, Johansson J, Martin JW. What is the effect of phasing out long-chain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on the concentrations of perfluoroalkyl acids and their precursors in the environment? A systematic review protocol. Environ Evid. 2015;4:3.
38. Pullin AS, Knight TM, Watkinson AR. Linking reductionist science and holistic policy using systematic reviews: unpacking environmental policy questions to construct an evidence-based framework. J Appl Ecol. 2009;46(5):970-5.
39. Land M, Granéli W, Grimvall A, Hoffmann CC, Mitsch WJ, Tonderski KS, Verhoeven JTA. How effective are created or restored freshwater wetlands for nitrogen and phosphorus removal? A systematic review. Environ Evid. 2016;5:9.
40. Bernes C, Bullock JM, Jakobsson S, Rundlöf M, Verheyen K, Lindborg R: How do different disturbance-management regimes in established roadsides affect the diversity of vascular plants and invertebrates? A systematic review protocol. Environ Evid. 2017. (In press).
41. Miljand M, Zetterberg H, Johansson S. Mer kunskap önskas. Kunskapsbehov i det svenska miljömålsarbetet, rapport från ett EviEM-projekt 2015. EviEM. 2016. http://www.eviem.se/en/publications/knowledgeproject/. Accessed 16 Jan 2017.
42. Sutherland WJ, Freckleton RP, Godfray HCJ, Beissinger SR, Benton T, Cameron DD, Carmel Y, Coomes DA, Coulson T, Emmerson MC, et al. Identification of 100 fundamental ecological questions. J Ecol. 2013;101(1):58-67.
43. Habermas J. Theory of communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1987.
44. Quinn E, Huckel-Schneider C, Campbell D, Seale H, Milat AJ. How can knowledge exchange portals assist in knowledge management for evidence-informed decision making in public health? BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):443.
45. Langer L, Erasmus Y, Tannous N, Stewart R. How stakeholder engagement has led us to reconsider definitions of rigour in systematic reviews. Environ Evid. 2017;6(1):20.