Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Alex Pollock, Pauline Campbell, Caroline Struthers, Anneliese Synnot, Jack Nunn, Sophie Hill, Heather Goodare, Jacqui Morris, Chris W. Watts, Richard Morley

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstract

6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve patients, health professionals, thepublic and others (stakeholders) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this.

Objectives: We aimed to document the evidence base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews,and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in conducting and producingsystematic reviews.

Methods: We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronicdatabases (2010-16). Titles and abstracts were screened by one author, after determining > 95% agreementbetween authors. We completed pre-planned data extraction and judged the comprehensiveness of thedescription of methods of involvement. We completed additional data extraction for papers judged to have themost comprehensive descriptions.

Results: We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Patients and/orcarers were involved in 30%. Thirty-two per cent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Wejudged 10% (32) to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Of these, 69%(22/32) personally invited people and 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. There werebetween 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings in 81% (26/32), with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 Abstracts of the 25th Cochrane Colloquium, Edinburgh, UK100hour to ½ day. A Delphi method was used in 19% (6/32), most often involving three electronic rounds. Details ofethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid in 8/32 systematic reviews.

Conclusions: We identified a relatively large number of papers (291) reporting stakeholder involvement insystematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papersjudged to provide the best descriptions provides examples of different ways in which stakeholders have beeninvolved in systematic reviews. These examples currently provide the best available information to inform andguide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement in future systematic reviews. This evidence hasbeen used to develop online learning resources. Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Three stakeholderrepresentatives were co-authors on this review.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)102
Number of pages1
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Volume2018
Issue number9
Publication statusPublished - 11 Sep 2018
Event25th Cochrane Colloquium 2018 - Edinburgh
Duration: 16 Sep 201818 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Canada
Learning
Delivery of Health Care
Health
Population
Community Participation

Cite this

Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Struthers, C., Synnot, A., Nunn, J., Hill, S., ... Morley, R. (2018). Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018(9), 102.
Pollock, Alex ; Campbell, Pauline ; Struthers, Caroline ; Synnot, Anneliese ; Nunn, Jack ; Hill, Sophie ; Goodare, Heather ; Morris, Jacqui ; Watts, Chris W. ; Morley, Richard. / Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews : a scoping review. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018 ; Vol. 2018, No. 9. pp. 102.
@article{e8229212de5b4434bd760f3a1195a729,
title = "Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review",
abstract = "Background: There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve patients, health professionals, thepublic and others (stakeholders) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this.Objectives: We aimed to document the evidence base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews,and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in conducting and producingsystematic reviews.Methods: We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronicdatabases (2010-16). Titles and abstracts were screened by one author, after determining > 95{\%} agreementbetween authors. We completed pre-planned data extraction and judged the comprehensiveness of thedescription of methods of involvement. We completed additional data extraction for papers judged to have themost comprehensive descriptions.Results: We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Patients and/orcarers were involved in 30{\%}. Thirty-two per cent were from the USA, 26{\%} from the UK and 10{\%} from Canada. Wejudged 10{\%} (32) to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Of these, 69{\%}(22/32) personally invited people and 22{\%} (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. There werebetween 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings in 81{\%} (26/32), with 83{\%} of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 Abstracts of the 25th Cochrane Colloquium, Edinburgh, UK100hour to ½ day. A Delphi method was used in 19{\%} (6/32), most often involving three electronic rounds. Details ofethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid in 8/32 systematic reviews.Conclusions: We identified a relatively large number of papers (291) reporting stakeholder involvement insystematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papersjudged to provide the best descriptions provides examples of different ways in which stakeholders have beeninvolved in systematic reviews. These examples currently provide the best available information to inform andguide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement in future systematic reviews. This evidence hasbeen used to develop online learning resources. Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Three stakeholderrepresentatives were co-authors on this review.",
author = "Alex Pollock and Pauline Campbell and Caroline Struthers and Anneliese Synnot and Jack Nunn and Sophie Hill and Heather Goodare and Jacqui Morris and Watts, {Chris W.} and Richard Morley",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "11",
language = "English",
volume = "2018",
pages = "102",
journal = "Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews",
issn = "1469-493X",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Inc.",
number = "9",

}

Pollock, A, Campbell, P, Struthers, C, Synnot, A, Nunn, J, Hill, S, Goodare, H, Morris, J, Watts, CW & Morley, R 2018, 'Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review', Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2018, no. 9, pp. 102.

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews : a scoping review. / Pollock, Alex; Campbell, Pauline; Struthers, Caroline; Synnot, Anneliese; Nunn, Jack; Hill, Sophie; Goodare, Heather; Morris, Jacqui; Watts, Chris W.; Morley, Richard.

In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2018, No. 9, 11.09.2018, p. 102.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstract

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews

T2 - a scoping review

AU - Pollock, Alex

AU - Campbell, Pauline

AU - Struthers, Caroline

AU - Synnot, Anneliese

AU - Nunn, Jack

AU - Hill, Sophie

AU - Goodare, Heather

AU - Morris, Jacqui

AU - Watts, Chris W.

AU - Morley, Richard

PY - 2018/9/11

Y1 - 2018/9/11

N2 - Background: There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve patients, health professionals, thepublic and others (stakeholders) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this.Objectives: We aimed to document the evidence base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews,and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in conducting and producingsystematic reviews.Methods: We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronicdatabases (2010-16). Titles and abstracts were screened by one author, after determining > 95% agreementbetween authors. We completed pre-planned data extraction and judged the comprehensiveness of thedescription of methods of involvement. We completed additional data extraction for papers judged to have themost comprehensive descriptions.Results: We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Patients and/orcarers were involved in 30%. Thirty-two per cent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Wejudged 10% (32) to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Of these, 69%(22/32) personally invited people and 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. There werebetween 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings in 81% (26/32), with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 Abstracts of the 25th Cochrane Colloquium, Edinburgh, UK100hour to ½ day. A Delphi method was used in 19% (6/32), most often involving three electronic rounds. Details ofethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid in 8/32 systematic reviews.Conclusions: We identified a relatively large number of papers (291) reporting stakeholder involvement insystematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papersjudged to provide the best descriptions provides examples of different ways in which stakeholders have beeninvolved in systematic reviews. These examples currently provide the best available information to inform andguide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement in future systematic reviews. This evidence hasbeen used to develop online learning resources. Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Three stakeholderrepresentatives were co-authors on this review.

AB - Background: There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve patients, health professionals, thepublic and others (stakeholders) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this.Objectives: We aimed to document the evidence base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews,and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in conducting and producingsystematic reviews.Methods: We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronicdatabases (2010-16). Titles and abstracts were screened by one author, after determining > 95% agreementbetween authors. We completed pre-planned data extraction and judged the comprehensiveness of thedescription of methods of involvement. We completed additional data extraction for papers judged to have themost comprehensive descriptions.Results: We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Patients and/orcarers were involved in 30%. Thirty-two per cent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Wejudged 10% (32) to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Of these, 69%(22/32) personally invited people and 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. There werebetween 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings in 81% (26/32), with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 Abstracts of the 25th Cochrane Colloquium, Edinburgh, UK100hour to ½ day. A Delphi method was used in 19% (6/32), most often involving three electronic rounds. Details ofethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid in 8/32 systematic reviews.Conclusions: We identified a relatively large number of papers (291) reporting stakeholder involvement insystematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papersjudged to provide the best descriptions provides examples of different ways in which stakeholders have beeninvolved in systematic reviews. These examples currently provide the best available information to inform andguide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement in future systematic reviews. This evidence hasbeen used to develop online learning resources. Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Three stakeholderrepresentatives were co-authors on this review.

M3 - Meeting abstract

VL - 2018

SP - 102

JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

SN - 1469-493X

IS - 9

ER -

Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018 Sep 11;2018(9):102.