Use of multi-attribute decision-making to inform prioritization of Cochrane review topics relevant to rehabilitation

European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 322-330

  Taylor, William J ^a   Green, Sally E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Decision making; Rehabilitation; Review

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; NARRATIVE; REVIEW; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; METHODOLOGY; REHABILITATION RESEARCH;

DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; REHABILITATION RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85067266433     PISSN: 19739087     EISSN: 19739095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.19.05787-3     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Hoddinott P, Pollock A, O'Cathain A, Boyer I, Taylor J, MacDonald C, et al. How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research. F1000 Res 2018;7:752.
2. Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Research waste is still a scandal - an essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ 2018;363:k4645.
3. Champion C. Structure and Function Review: Positioning Cochrane Fields as KT-Focussed Groups; Final design proposals; [Internet]. Available from: https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/ inline-files/11.2%20Structure%20and%20Function%20Review%20 of%20Cochrane%20Fields%20final%20design%20proposals%20-%20 OPEN%20-%20website%20version.docx [cited 2019, Mar 15].
4. Cochrane. Cochrane Knowledge Translation Framework. 2017.
5. Kayes NM, Martin RA, Bright FA, Kersten P, Pollock A. Optimising the real-world impact of rehabilitation reviews: increasing the relevance and usability of systematic reviews in rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Med Rehabil 2019. [Epub ahead of print].
6. Nasser M, Welch V, Tugwell P, Ueffing E, Doyle J, Waters E. Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:474-82.
7. Martínez García L, Pardo-Hernandez H, Superchi C, Niño de Guzman E, Ballesteros M, Ibargoyen Roteta N, et al. Methodological systematic review identifies major limitations in prioritization processes for updating. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;86:11-24.
8. Handoll HH, Stott DJ, Elstub LJ, Elliott JC, Kavanagh AL, Madhok R. Aframework for effective collaboration between specialist and broad-spectrum groups for delivering priority Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:490-5.
9. Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, McKoy NA. Development of a frame-work to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1325-30.
10. Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, Iversen V, Tricco AC, Porcher R. AScoping Review describes Methods Used to Identify, Prioritize and Display Gaps in Health Research. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;S0895-4356(18)30754-6. [Epub ahead of print].
11. KTWorking Group for Embedding Prioritization. Guidance note for Cochrane Groups to define systematic review priorities; [Internet]. Available from: https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/ PSGuidanceNote_Draft_11th%20July%202018.pdf [cited 2019, Apr 3].
12. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health 2012;15:1172-81.
13. Tromp N, Baltussen R. Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers. BMCHealth Serv Res 2012;12:454.
14. Rudan I, Gibson JL, Ameratunga S, El Arifeen S, Bhutta ZA, Black M, et al.; Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRImethod. Croat Med J 2008;49:720-33.
15. Tomlinson M, Swartz L, Officer A, Chan KY, Rudan I, Saxena S. Research priorities for health of people with disabilities: an expert opinion exercise. Lancet 2009;374:1857-62.
16. Philips Z, Claxton KP, Palmer S, Bojke L, Sculpher MJ. Priority setting for research in health care: an application of value of information analysis to glycoprotein IIb/Illa antagonists in non-STelevation acute coronary syndrome. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22:379-87.
17. McPherson K, Myers J, Taylor WJ, McNaughton HK, Weatherall M. Self-valuation and societal valuations of health state differ with disease severity in chronic and disabling conditions. Med Care 2004;42:1143-51.
18. O'Neill J, Tabish H, Welch V, Petticrew M, Pottie K, Clarke M, et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESSensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:56-64.
19. Susskind L, McKearnan S. Thomas-Larmer J, editors. The consensus building handbook: Acomprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.