2 research outputs found
Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation
Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.
METHODS:
This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.
DISCUSSION:
We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health
When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions:Consensus checklist
For systematic reviews of interventions, replication is defined as the
reproduction of findings of previous systematic reviews looking at the same
effectiveness question either by: purposefully repeating the same methods to
verify one or more empirical findings; or purposefully extending or narrowing
the systematic review to a broader or more focused question (eg, across broader
or more focused populations, intervention types, settings, outcomes, or study
designs)
Although systematic reviews are often used as the basis for informing policy
and practice decisions, little evidence has been published so far on whether
replication of systematic reviews is worthwhile
Replication of existing systematic reviews cannot be done for all topics; any
unnecessary or poorly conducted replication contributes to research waste
The decision to replicate a systematic review should be based on the priority of
the research question; the likelihood that a replication will resolve uncertainties,
controversies, or the need for additional evidence; the magnitude of the benefit
or harm of implementing findings of a replication; and the opportunity cost of
the replication
Systematic review authors, commissioners, funders, and other users (including
clinicians, patients, and representatives from policy making organisations) can
use the guidance and checklist proposed here to assess the need for a replicatio