The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation

Abstract

BackgroundGroups or institutions funding or conducting systematic reviews in health policy and systems research (HPSR) should prioritise topics according to the needs of policymakers and stakeholders. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR.MethodsWe developed the tool following a four-step approach consisting of (1) the definition of the purpose and scope of tool, (2) item generation and reduction, (3) testing for content and face validity, (4) and pilot testing of the tool. The research team involved international experts in HPSR, systematic review methodology and tool development, led by the Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK). We followed an inclusive approach in determining the final selection of items to allow customisation to the user’s needs.ResultsThe purpose of the SPARK tool was to prioritise questions in HPSR in order to address them in systematic reviews. In the item generation and reduction phase, an extensive literature search yielded 40 relevant articles, which were reviewed by the research team to create a preliminary list of 19 candidate items for inclusion in the tool. As part of testing for content and face validity, input from international experts led to the refining, changing, merging and addition of new items, and to organisation of the tool into two modules. Following pilot testing, we finalised the tool, with 22 items organised in two modules – the first module including 13 items to be rated by policymakers and stakeholders, and the second including 9 items to be rated by systematic review teams. Users can customise the tool to their needs, by omitting items that may not be applicable to their settings. We also developed a user manual that provides guidance on how to use the SPARK tool, along with signaling questions.ConclusionWe have developed and conducted initial validation of the SPARK tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR, along with a user manual. By aligning systematic review production to policy priorities, the tool will help support evidence-informed policymaking and reduce research waste. We invite others to contribute with additional real-life implementation of the tool.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0242-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist

“…Other items were removed because they appear in the accompanying tools. For example, although the research team generally agreed that the durability of information produced through the replication was worth mentioning, this would generally be part of the item assessing the priority of a systematic review replication, and is included in priority setting tools such as the SPARK tool 20…”

Approaches to evidence synthesis in international development: a research agenda

“…Involving broader groups of policy makers has been the focus of deliberative debate once systematic reviews have been completed (Moat et al 2014), rather than when framing the questions. This work overlaps with what is known about setting research priorities (Viergever et al 2010;Akl et al 2017).  Decision-making organisations raise awareness and skills for their staff to draw on such a global repository of systematic reviews (Model 1)  When synthesised evidence is required for urgent decisions, systematic methods be applied (Models 2 and 4), and systematic reviewers draw on these repositories to use or re-analyse existing systematic reviews containing relevant evidence  Investigating the relationship between public goods reviews and tailored reviews.…”

“…The policy relevance of public goods reviews aligned with models one and three can be achieved through formal priority setting exercises (Viergever et al 2010). These are being adapted for systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration (Nasser et al 2013) and for reviews addressing health systems in low and middle income countries, where scarce resources make priority setting particularly important (Akl et al 2017).…”

Engagement of health research institutions in knowledge translation in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

“…However, involving policymakers and stakeholders in setting priorities for research on health was highest among NGOs. Conducting priority setting is only the first step in KT and should be followed by evidence synthesis, development of KT products and impact assessment (18). Around half of respondents did not know whether a national health council that regulates funding priorities exists in their country.…”