Optimizing the real-world impact of rehabilitation reviews: Increasing the relevance and usability of systematic reviews in rehabilitation

European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 331-341

  Kayes, Nicola M ^a   Martin, Rachelle A ^b   Bright, Felicity A ^a   Kersten, Paula ^c   Pollock, Alex ^d  

^a AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON   (United Kingdom)

^d GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Stakeholder participation; Systematic review; Translational medical research

Indexed keywords

DRAWING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE CENTER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; REVIEW; STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THEORETICAL STUDY; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; REHABILITATION RESEARCH;

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMANS; REHABILITATION RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 85067266452     PISSN: 19739087     EISSN: 19739095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.19.05793-9     Document Type: Review

References (90)

1. Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J RSoc Med 2011;104:510-20.
2. Bucknall T. Bridging the know-do gap in health care through integrated knowledge translation. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2012;9:193-4.
3. Pakenham-Walsh N. Learning from one another to bridge the "know-do gap". BMJ 2004;329:1189.
4. van den Driessen Mareeuw F, Vaandrager L, Klerkx L, Naaldenberg J, Koelen M. Beyond bridging the know-do gap: a qualitative study of systemic interaction to foster knowledge exchange in the public health sector in The Netherlands. BMCPublic Health 2015;15:922.
5. Walker MF, Fisher RJ, Korner-Bitensky N, McCluskey A, Carey LM. From what we know to what we do: translating stroke rehabilitation research into practice. Int J Stroke 2013;8:11-7.
6. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Knowledge Translation Framework; 2017 [Internet]. Available from: http://community.cochrane.org/ sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Cochrane%20Knowledge%20 Translation%20Framework.pdf [cited 2019, Apr 10].
7. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Strategy to 2020; [Internet]. Available from: [cited 2019, Apr 10].
8. Marquez C, Johnson AM, Jassemi S, Park J, Moore JE, Blaine C, et al. Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? Amixed-methods study. Implement Sci 2018;13:84.
9. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. Asystematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMCHealth Serv Res 2014;14:2.
10. Oliver KA, de Vocht F. Defining 'evidence' in public health: a survey of policymakers' uses and preferences. Eur J Public Health 2017;27(suppl_2):112-7.
11. Tricco AC, Cardoso R, Thomas SM, Motiwala S, Sullivan S, Kealey MR, et al. Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review. Implement Sci 2016;11:4.
12. Wallace J, Byrne C, Clarke M. Making evidence more wanted: a systematic review of facilitators to enhance the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Int J Evid-Based Healthc 2012;10:338-46.
13. 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.
14. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(Suppl 1):21-34.
15. Pollock A, Berge E. How to do a systematic review. Int J Stroke 2018;13:138-56.
16. Pollock AMR, Watts C. Involving People: Alearning resource for systematic review authors; 2018 [Internet]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/involving-people [cited 2019, Apr 10].
17. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses - Evolving Standards) project. Health Serv Deliv Res 2014;2.
18. Callard F, Rose D, Wykes T. Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expect 2012;15:389-400.
19. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect 2014;17:637-50.
20. Yarborough M, Edwards K, Espinoza P, Geller G, Sarwal A, Sharp R, et al. Relationships hold the key to trustworthy and productive translational science: recommendations for expanding community engagement in biomedical research. Clin Transl Sci 2013;6:310-3.
21. 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.
22. Brandon PR, Fukunaga LL. The State of the Empirical Research Literature on Stakeholder Involvement in Program Evaluation. Am J Eval 2013;35:26-44.
23. Shippee ND, Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, Elraiyah TA, Nabhan M, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect 2015;18:1151-66.
24. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res 2012;1:181-94.
25. Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley AR, Gabbay J, et al. Amultidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect 2008;11:72-84.
26. Peters DH, Bhuiya A, Ghaffar A. Engaging stakeholders in implementation research: lessons from the Future Health Systems Research Programme experience. Health Res Policy Syst 2017;15(Suppl 2):104.
27. Thompson J, Barber R, Ward PR, Boote JD, Cooper CL, Armitage CJ, et al. Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research. Health Expect 2009;12:209-20.
28. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPPchecklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011;27:391-9.
29. Hanley B, Bradburn J, Barnes M, Evans C, Goodare H, Kelson M, et al. Involving the public in NHSpublic health, and social care research: briefing notes for researchers. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2004.
30. Public Involvement Standards Development Partnership. National Standards for Public Involvement; [Internet]. Available https://sites. google.com/nihr.ac.uk/pi-standards/home [cited 2019, Apr 10].
31. Hickey G, Brearley S, Coldham T. Guidance on co-producing a research project. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2018.
32. Smith E, Ross F, Donovan S, Manthorpe J, Brearley S, Sitzia J, et al. Service user involvement in nursing, midwifery and health visiting research: a review of evidence and practice. Int J Nurs Stud 2008;45:298-315.
33. Braye S, Preston-Shoot M. Emerging from out of the shadows? Service user and carer involvement in systematic reviews. Evidence & Policy: AJournal of Research Debate and Practice 2005;1:173-94.
34. 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.
35. 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;28:67-72.
36. Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect 2013;16:323-37.
37. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Res Involv Engagem 2017;3:9.
38. INVOLVE. Public involvement in systematic review: Supplement to the briefing notes for researchers. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012.
39. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev 2018;7:208.
40. Cochrane Collaboration. Consumer involvement in Cochrane - the Statement of Principles; 2017 [Internet]. Available from: http://consumers.cochrane.org/sites/consumers.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/ statement_of_principles_for_consumer_involvement_in_cochrane_ july_2017.pdf [cited 2019, Apr 10].
41. Bastian H. The power of sharing knowledge: Consumer participation in the Cochrane Collaboration; 1994 [Internet]. Available from: https:// consumers.cochrane.org/sites/consumers.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/BastianPowerofSharingKnowledge_1994.pdf [cited 2019, Apr 10].
42. Morley RF, 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 Involv Engagem 2016;2:36.
43. Kersten P, Ellis-Hill C, McPherson KM, Harrington R. Beyond the RCT- understanding the relationship between interventions, individuals and outcome - the example of neurological rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2010;32:1028-34.
44. Dejong G, Horn SD, Conroy B, Nichols D, Healton EB. Opening the Black Box of Poststroke Rehabilitation: Stroke Rehabilitation Patients, Processes, and Outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:1-7.
45. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008;336:1472-4.
46. Hoffmann TC, Erueti C, Glasziou PP. Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ 2013;347:f3755.
47. Hoffmann TC, Walker MF, Langhorne P, Eames S, Thomas E, Glasziou P. What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions. BMJ Open 2015;5:e009051.
48. Santisteban L, Térémetz M, Bleton JP, Baron JC, Maier MA, Lindberg PG. Upper Limb Outcome Measures Used in Stroke Rehabilitation Studies: ASystematic Literature Review. PLoSOne 2016;11:e0154792.
49. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M; Medical Research Council Guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655.
50. World Health Organisation. International classification of functioning, disability, and health: ICF (Version 1.0.). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
51. Pollock A, Campbell P, Baer G, Choo PL, Morris J, Forster A. User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review: using structured methods to enhance the clinical relevance, usefulness and usability of a systematic review update. Syst Rev 2015;4:55.
52. 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.
53. Cullen KL, Irvin E, Collie A, Clay F, Gensby U, Jennings PA, et al. Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions in Return-to-Work for Musculoskeletal, Pain-Related and Mental Health Conditions: An Update of the Evidence and Messages for Practitioners. J Occup Rehabil 2018;28:1-15.
54. Saan MC, Boeije HR, Sattoe JN, Bal MI, Missler M, van Wesel F. Recording and accounting for stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. Health Info Libr J 2015;32:95-106.
55. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem 2017;3:13.
56. Synnot A, Bragge P, Lowe D, Nunn JS, O'Sullivan M, Horvat L, et al. Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders. BMJ Open 2018;8:e019481.
57. Hill S, Synnot A, O'sullivan M, Nunn J, Lowe D. Research Priority Setting: Setting priorities for Cochrane Reviews on consumer and communication topics; [Internet]. Available from: www.latrobe.edu.au/chcp/ projects/research-priority-setting [cited 2019, Apr 10].
58. Martin S, Fleming J, Cullum S, Dening T, Rait G, Fox C, et al. Exploring attitudes and preferences for dementia screening in Britain: contributions from carers and the general public. BMCGeriatr 2015;15:110.
59. Young AE, Wasiak R, Roessler RT, McPherson KM, Anema JR, van Poppel MN. Return-to-work outcomes following work disability: stakeholder motivations, interests and concerns. J Occup Rehabil 2005;15:543-56.
60. Beresford P. Beyond the Usual Suspects. London: Shaping Our Lives; 2013.
61. Green LW, Glasgow RE, Atkins D, Stange K. Making evidence from research more relevant, useful, and actionable in policy, program planning, and practice slips "twixt cup and lip". Am J Prev Med 2009;37(Suppl 1):S187-91.
62. Green LW, Ottoson JM, García C, Hiatt RA. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health 2009;30:151-74.
63. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004;82:581-629.
64. Lenfant C. Shattuck lecture - clinical research to clinical practice - lost in translation? N Engl J Med 2003;349:868-74.
65. Marchal B, Westhorp G, Wong G, Van Belle S, Greenhalgh T, Kegels G, et al. Realist RCTs of complex interventions - an oxymoron. Soc Sci Med 2013;94:124-8.
66. Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMCMed 2018;16:95.
67. Greenhalgh T, Malterud K. Systematic Reviews for Policymaking: muddling Through. Am J Public Health 2017;107:97-9.
68. Lavis JN, Davies HT, Gruen RL, Walshe K, Farquhar CM. Working within and beyond the Cochrane Collaboration to make systematic reviews more useful to healthcare managers and policy makers. Healthc Policy 2006;1:21-33.
69. Snilstveit B. Systematic reviews: from 'bare bones' reviews to policy relevance. J Dev Effect 2012;4:388-408.
70. Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, Firkins L. Top 10 research priorities relating to life after stroke - consensus from stroke survivors, caregivers, and health professionals. Int J Stroke 2014;9:313-20.
71. Monaghan M, Boaz A. Chapter 10. Evidence from realist research, it's influence and impact. In: Emmel N, Greenhalgh J, Manzano A, Monaghan M, Dalkin S, editors. Doing Realist Research. London: Sage; 2018.
72. Fletcher A, Jamal F, Moore G, Evans RE, Murphy S, Bonell C. Realist complex intervention science: applying realist principles across all phases of the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Evaluation (Lond) 2016;22:286-303.
73. Harden A, Thomas J, Cargo M, Harris J, Pantoja T, Flemming K, et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 5: methods for integrating qualitative and implementation evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;97:70-8.
74. Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest 2018;48:e12931.
75. Emmel N, Greenhalgh J, Manzano A, Monaghan M, Dalkin S. Introduction: Doing realist evaluation, synthesis and research. In: Emmel N, Greenhalgh J, Manzano A, Monaghan M, Dalkin S, editors. Doing Realist Research. London: Sage; 2018.
76. Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What's in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci 2015;10:49.
77. Shaw J, Gray CS, Baker GR, Denis JL, Breton M, Gutberg J, et al. Mechanisms, contexts and points of contention: operationalizing realist-informed research for complex health interventions. BMCMed Res Methodol 2018;18:178.
78. Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, DeCorby K, Bucknall TK, Kent B, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implement Sci 2012;7:33.
79. Kristjansson EA, Robinson V, Petticrew M, MacDonald B, Krasevec J, Janzen L, et al. School feeding for improving the physical and psychosocial health of disadvantaged elementary school children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(1):CD004676.
80. Greenhalgh T, Kristjansson E, Robinson V. Realist review to understand the efficacy of school feeding programmes. BMJ 2007;335:858-61.
81. Whitaker R, Hendry M, Aslam R, Booth A, Carter B, Charles JM, et al. Intervention Now to Eliminate Repeat Unintended Pregnancy in Teenagers (INTERUPT): a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and qualitative and realist synthesis of implementation factors and user engagement. Health Technol Assess 2016;20:1-214.
82. Whitaker R, Hendry M, Booth A, Carter B, Charles J, Craine N, et al. Intervention Now To Eliminate Repeat Unintended Pregnancy in Teenagers (INTERUPT): a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, qualitative and realist synthesis of implementation factors and user engagement. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004733.
83. Roberts JL, Din NU, Williams M, Hawkes CA, Charles JM, Hoare Z, et al. Development of an evidence-based complex intervention for community rehabilitation of patients with hip fracture using realist review, survey and focus groups. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014362.
84. Levack WM, Kayes NM, Fadyl JK. Experience of recovery and outcome following traumatic brain injury: a metasynthesis of qualitative research. Disabil Rehabil 2010;32:986-99.
85. Dijkers MP, Murphy SL, Krellman J. Evidence-based practice for rehabilitation professionals: concepts and controversies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93(Suppl):S164-76.
86. Brown HE, Atkin AJ, Panter J, Wong G, Chinapaw MJ, van Sluijs EM. Family-based interventions to increase physical activity in children: a systematic review, meta-analysis and realist synthesis. Obes Rev 2016;17:345-60.
87. Hart TW, Dijkers M, Packel A, Turkstra L, Zanca J, Ferraro M, et al. Manual of Rehabilitation Treatment Specification; [Internet]. Available from: http://mrri.org/innovations/manual-for-rehabilitation-treatment-specification/ [cited 2019, Apr 10].
88. Siegert RJ, McPherson KM, Dean SG. Theory development and a science of rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1493-501.
89. Hoffmann T, Bennett S, Del Mar C. Evidence-Based Practice Across the Health Professions. Third edition. Elsevier; 2017.
90. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996;312:71-2.