Getting ready for user involvement in a systematic review

Smith, E.; Donovan, Sheila; Beresford, Peter; Manthorpe, Jill; Brearley, Sally; Sitzia, John; Ross, Fiona

doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00535.x

Cited by 32 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 744 documents were identified in the search, discounting duplicates. Of these 744 documents, three papers were identified on public involvement in the systematic review process on the basis of paper title and abstract (where available) [20,21,25]. The two main reasons for exclusion were: (1) the document was not a systematic review or a reflection on the public involvement within an individual systematic review and (2) (for systematic reviews) no evidence was reported of the involvement of the public in the systematic review.…”

Section: Identifying Relevant Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite these surveys and aggregated accounts of public involvement within Cochrane review groups, detailed accounts of public involvement within individual systematic reviews in the fields of health and social care remain scarce [20,21]. The purpose of the present paper therefore is: to identify and review case examples of public involvement in the design and conduct of individual systematic reviews; to examine the methods, levels and stages of involvement reported; to synthesise the impacts of involving the public; to discuss the tensions, facilitating strategies and recommendations for good practice that have been identified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples

Boote¹,

Baird²,

Sutton³

2011

Health Policy

100

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Identifying Relevant Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples

Boote¹,

Baird²,

Sutton³

2011

Health Policy

100

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…93 The benefits of PPI include enhanced depth, credibility and applicability of findings, improved clarity of final reports and recommendations and an immediate link between practice-based evidence and evidence-based methodology. [94][95][96] Although it is recognised that PPI in research should begin at the earliest stage possible, in practice it is not easily achievable. Constraints on time, funding, ethics approvals and the availability of appropriate representatives often mean that PPI is not included until research is fairly well advanced.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking cessation in pregnancy (BIBS): a mixed-methods study to inform trial design

Morgan

Hoddinott

Thomson

et al. 2015

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSmoking in pregnancy and/or not breastfeeding have considerable negative health outcomes for mother and baby.AimTo understand incentive mechanisms of action for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breastfeeding, develop a taxonomy and identify promising, acceptable and feasible interventions to inform trial design.DesignEvidence syntheses, primary qualitative survey, and discrete choice experiment (DCE) research using multidisciplinary, mixed methods. Two mother-and-baby groups in disadvantaged areas collaborated throughout.SettingUK.ParticipantsThe qualitative study included 88 pregnant women/recent mothers/partners, 53 service providers, 24 experts/decision-makers and 63 conference attendees. The surveys included 1144 members of the general public and 497 health professionals. The DCE study included 320 women with a history of smoking.Methods(1) Evidence syntheses: incentive effectiveness (including meta-analysis and effect size estimates), delivery processes, barriers to and facilitators of smoking cessation in pregnancy and/or breastfeeding, scoping review of incentives for lifestyle behaviours; (2) qualitative research: grounded theory to understand incentive mechanisms of action and a framework approach for trial design; (3) survey: multivariable ordered logit models; (4) DCE: conditional logit regression and the log-likelihood ratio test.ResultsOut of 1469 smoking cessation and 5408 breastfeeding multicomponent studies identified, 23 smoking cessation and 19 breastfeeding studies were included in the review. Vouchers contingent on biochemically proven smoking cessation in pregnancy were effective, with a relative risk of 2.58 (95% confidence interval 1.63 to 4.07) compared with non-contingent incentives for participation (four studies, 344 participants). Effects continued until 3 months post partum. Inconclusive effects were found for breastfeeding incentives compared with no/smaller incentives (13 studies) but provider commitment contracts for breastfeeding show promise. Intervention intensity is a possible confounder. The acceptability of seven promising incentives was mixed. Women (for vouchers) and those with a lower level of education (except for breastfeeding incentives) were more likely to disagree. Those aged ≤ 44 years and ethnic minority groups were more likely to agree. Agreement was greatest for a free breast pump and least for vouchers for breastfeeding. Universal incentives were preferred to those targeting low-income women. Initial daily text/telephone support, a quitting pal, vouchers for > £20.00 per month and values up to £80.00 increase the likelihood of smoking cessation. Doctors disagreed with provider incentives. A ‘ladder’ logic model emerged through data synthesis and had face validity with service users. It combined an incentive typology and behaviour change taxonomy. Autonomy and well-being matter. Personal difficulties, emotions, socialising and attitudes of others are challenges to climbing a metaphorical ‘ladder’ towards smoking cessation and breastfeeding. Incentive interventions provide opportunity ‘rungs’ to help, including regular skilled flexible support, a pal, setting goals, monitoring and outcome verification. Individually tailored and non-judgemental continuity of care can bolster women’s capabilities to succeed. Rigid, prescriptive interventions placing the onus on women to behave ‘healthily’ risk them feeling pressurised and failing. To avoid ‘losing face’, women may disengage.LimitationsIncluded studies were heterogeneous and of variable quality, limiting the assessment of incentive effectiveness. No cost-effectiveness data were reported. In surveys, selection bias and confounding are possible. The validity and utility of the ladder logic model requires evaluation with more diverse samples of the target population.ConclusionsIncentives provided with other tailored components show promise but reach is a concern. Formal evaluation is recommended. Collaborative service-user involvement is important.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012001980.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

“…Ez a primer kutatásoknál is megköve-telt előfeltétel egyre inkább elvárt a rendszerezett áttekintő közlemények készítése esetében is. Az ajánlá-sok szerint a tanulmány szükségességének és hatásterüle-tének meghatározásától az eredmények értékeléséig a rendszerezett irodalmi áttekintés készítésének minden szakaszában javasolt a felhasználók részvétele oly mó-don, hogy előre meghatározzák, melyik fázisban pontosan mit várnak tőlük [15].…”

Section: Az Eredmények öSszefüggésükben Történő Elhelyezése Gyakorlaunclassified

Szisztematikus irodalmi áttekintések módszertana és jelentősége. Segítség a diagnosztikus és terápiás döntésekhez

Kamarási

Mogyorósy

2015

Orvosi Hetilap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Az egészségügy egyik nagy problémája napjainkban, hogy számos betegségnek nincs igazoltan hatásos kezelése, emiatt ugyanazon kórképpel kapcsolatban gyakran kórházról kórházra más terápiás döntések születnek. Egyre nagyobb szükség van olyan áttekintő közleményekre, amelyek tudományos módszerekkel összegzik a szakirodalomból nyert információkat. A szerzők célja, hogy áttekintő közlemény keretein belül bemutassák a hagyományos narratív össze-foglalók korlátait, és szélesebb körben megismertessék a hazai szakemberekkel a minőségileg új, megbízhatóbb eredményeket biztosító rendszerezett áttekintő közlemények módszertanát és jelentőségét. A rendszerezett áttekintő közlemények olyan transzparens, tudományos módszertannal, protokoll alapján készülő magas szintű átfogó tanulmányok, amelyek az elkészítésük során végzett részletes, alapos kutatómunka révén tartalmazzák az összes fellelhető irodalom kritikus értékelését és tudományos igényű szintézisét egy adott témával kapcsolatban. A szisztematikus irodalmi áttekintések segítségével a legmegbízhatóbb tudományos bizonyítékok ismeretében, az egyéni klinikai tapasztalat felhasználásával hozhatunk diagnosztikus és terápiás döntéseket, amelyekre az egészségügy és az egészség-politika számos területén nagy szükség van. Orv. Hetil., 2015, 156(38), 1523-1531.Kulcsszavak: bizonyíték, protokoll, transzparencia, rendszerezett irodalmi áttekintés Systematic surveys of literature -importance and methodology Support in diagnostics and therapyThere is no proven effective treatment for many diseases today that proves to be one of the greatest problems of health care. Therefore, different therapeutic decisions are made in connection with the same disease by hospitals. There is a growing need for reviews which summarize the information collected from professional literature with scientifi c methods. The aim of the authors was to show the limitations of conventional narrative reviews, and to present the method and importance of systematic reviews to Hungarian professionals. Systematic reviews are transparent studies which are based on a predetermined protocol and collate all empirical evidence to answer a specifi c research question, and consequently provide more reliable results. They use explicit and systematic methods to minimize bias, and provide evidence for clinicians and policy makers to help them make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions which are essential in several fi elds of the health care system and health policy, too. ÖSSZEFOGLALÓ KÖZLEMÉNYAz utóbbi évtizedekben az egészségtudományokkal kapcsolatos publikációk mennyisége olyan mértékben megnövekedett, hogy szinte lehetetlen lépést tartani az új kutatási eredményekkel. A tankönyvek szerepét már ré-gen átvették a tudományos folyóiratokban megjelenő közlemények, a publikációk internet-hozzáférésének ál-

show abstract

Getting ready for user involvement in a systematic review

Cited by 32 publications

References 20 publications

Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples

Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: A narrative review of case examples

Benefits of Incentives for Breastfeeding and Smoking cessation in pregnancy (BIBS): a mixed-methods study to inform trial design

Szisztematikus irodalmi áttekintések módszertana és jelentősége. Segítség a diagnosztikus és terápiás döntésekhez

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About