Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research

Abstract

ObjectiveEngaging stakeholders in reviews is considered to generate more relevant evidence and to facilitate dissemination and use. As little is known about stakeholder involvement, we assessed the characteristics of their engagement in systematic and rapid reviews and the methodological quality of included studies. Stakeholders were people with a particular interest in the research topic.DesignMethodological review.Search strategyFour databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, databases of the University of York, Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)) were searched based on an a priori protocol. Four types of reviews (Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, rapid and CRD rapid reviews) were retrieved between January 2011 and October 2015, pooled by potential review type and duplicates excluded. Articles were randomly ordered and screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria until 30 reviews per group were reached. Their methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR and stakeholder characteristics were collected.ResultsIn total, 57 822 deduplicated citations were detected with potential non-Cochrane systematic reviews being the biggest group (56 986 records). We found stakeholder involvement in 13% (4/30) of Cochrane, 20% (6/30) of non-Cochrane, 43% (13/30) of rapid and 93% (28/30) of CRD reviews. Overall, 33% (17/51) of the responding contact authors mentioned positive effects of stakeholder involvement. A conflict of interest statement remained unmentioned in 40% (12/30) of non-Cochrane and in 27% (8/30) of rapid reviews, but not in Cochrane or CRD reviews. At most, half of non-Cochrane and rapid reviews mentioned an a priori study protocol in contrast to all Cochrane reviews.ConclusionStakeholder engagement was not general practice, except for CRD reviews, although it was more common in rapid reviews. Reporting factors, such as including an a priori study protocol and a conflict of interest statement should be considered in conjunction with involving stakeholders.

Applications of digital health for public health responses to COVID-19: a systematic scoping review of artificial intelligence, telehealth and related technologies

“…The strengths of this review include its timeliness in the context of the ongoing pandemic, systematic article inclusion and data extraction, as well as the scoping review approach for an in-depth analysis of the literature. Added benefits of this review include an a priori protocol and involvement of stakeholders with relevant experience developing digital health and deployment in clinical services before and during COVID-19 35 . We have specifically included in this review only digital technologies with applications for population-level public health responses during COVID-19.…”

Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research

“…Rapid reviews are frequently commissioned by a knowledge user to inform a specific decision [ 11 , 25 ]. Therefore, understanding the reporting requirements of the knowledge user is essential to tailor the rapid review to the knowledge users needed.…”

“…Reporting of the rapid review approach and tailoring of the methodology are often inadequate [ 2 , 14 , 17 ]. Details on knowledge user involvement are reported in less than 50% of reports [ 25 ]. A detailed assessment of the reporting quality of published rapid reviews, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, also found the reporting to be of poor quality across the included rapid reviews [ 14 ].…”

Participatory Action Research Applied to an Ear, Nose, and Throat Specialty Service Redesign in Remote Australia: A Mixed-Methods Study of Key Stakeholder Perspectives

“…Stakeholders were Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service staff who were directly involved with clinical care or coordination (administration and data management system) of ENT services in Cape York. Potential stakeholders were recruited via email and invited to describe their views on current service delivery and identify potential solutions that could be incorporated into the development of the new ENT health service model [ 17 ]. Stakeholders were identified by the Queensland Health directory database.…”

“…The involvement of stakeholders in health service redesign influences the quality, dissemination, and contextualization of findings and, therefore, contributes to the sustainability of the service delivery [ 16 ]. Furthermore, PAR can improve worker satisfaction and lead to better quality outputs, which are sustained [ 17 ]. Thus, the aim of this mixed-methods study is (1) to outline primary health care clinicians’ current ENT concerns; (2) to gain ENT stakeholders’ perspectives in the current gaps and barriers to ENT services in the region; and (3) to make recommendations for a new ENT service model.…”