Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas

Abstract

IntroductionThe Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups.Ethics and disseminationWe have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context.

Engaging Knowledge Users with Mental Health Experience in a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Post-secondary Students with Psychosis: Reflections and Lessons Learned from a Master’s Thesis

“…As with all research, priority setting is important for systematic review studies to identify the most important research gaps and health evidence needs. 17 Moving forward with future iKT projects, we will more carefully consider the prioritization issue and use existing processes (eg, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Groups frameworks, approaches, or methods for prioritization in systematic reviews), which may help to guide preliminary KU conversations and narrow the focus. 18 In this study, we reached consensus on study objectives by gathering individual feedback from KUs, compiled each idea into a project large in scope, and then received agreement from each KU individually.…”

Cochrane acute respiratory infections group's stakeholder engagement project identified systematic review priority areas

“…Prioritisation projects relying solely on respondents to write-in their proposed topics have been conducted, [7] or are currently in progress, [14] however, this approach has previously been found to yield a very large number of unanswerable questions. For example, a similar exercise by the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group found that of the 258 questions suggested by the respondents, 183 (or 71%) were unanswerable.…”

General practice research priority setting in Australia: Informing a research agenda to deliver best patient care

“…18 The Delphi process is commonly modified and, on the basis of available evidence, the researchers selected a modified two-round Delphi study as most appropriate for this study. [19][20][21][22]…”