Bonn, Noémi

Booth, Andrew

Gillespie, Stuart

Hawwash, Dana

Holdsworth, Michelle

Lachat, Carl

Pinxten, Wim

Verstraeten, Roosmarijn

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

 PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews Nutrition prioritisation: three inter-dependent (mapping, methodology, and ethics)systematic review outputsRoosmarijn Verstraeten, Dana Hawwash, Carl Lachat, Noémie Bonn, Wim Pinxten, Stuart Gillespie, Michelle Holdsworth,Andrew Booth  CitationRoosmarijn Verstraeten, Dana Hawwash, Carl Lachat, Noémie Bonn, Wim Pinxten, Stuart Gillespie, MichelleHoldsworth, Andrew Booth. Nutrition prioritisation: three inter-dependent (mapping, methodology, and ethics)systematic review outputs. PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016043805 Available from  http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO_REBRANDING/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016043805  Review question(s)This review includes three inter-dependent systematic review outputs. The review questions are presented for eachoutput. MApping Review (MAR): To systematically identify priority setting exercises (e.g. in research, policy, andimplementation science) in the nutrition field.MEthodological Review (MER): Short-term objective: To systematically review and map methodological tools used in priority setting for nutrition.MEthodological Review (MER): Long-term objective: To perform a gap-analysis to identify the (mis)match between the reality of how priorities arebeing set in countries (practice) versus the developed matrix of methodological tools (theory). Based on this analysis,the resultant matrix could underpin a guide to decide on when to best use which prioritisation technique.EThical Review (ETR): To systematically evaluate priority setting exercises in nutrition research to develop anethical framework using the best-fit framework. An initial framework will be populated deductively and refined andexpanded inductively from identified studies. Additionally this framework will be further validated throughstakeholder consultation. The framework could serve as guidance regarding values to be used when setting researchpriorities in nutrition.SearchesThe following electronic databases will be searched: MEDLINE (PubMed; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed),EMBASE (http://www.embase.com), Web of Science (http://www.webofknowledge.com), the Cochrane Library(http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/), and TRIP database (www.tripdatabase.com). The powerful full-text capabilityof Google Scholar will also be harnessed, through keywords and citation searches.The initial search string will be developed in MEDLINE by using the Population, Intervention, Comparison andOutcome model (PICO), combining Population (Decision-making bodies in the nutrition field; keywords: diet, food,and nutrition), Intervention (Named Methods of Priority-Setting; keywords: priority, Delphi, agenda, consensus,voting), Comparison (Alternative Methods of Priority Setting), and Outcome (Compatibility of priorities to identifiedneed, satisfaction of stakeholders, proportionality of priority setting exercise to magnitude of decision problem,methodology, ethics, etc.) terms. The search string will be further refined for use in the different databases. It willinclude both text words and thesaurus terms, which will be adapted for each of the databases searched. Searches willbe conducted in July-August 2016. Additional eligible studies will be identified from the bibliographies of publishedreviews and included articles. The review will be limited to studies published in English, French, Spanish, Dutch, andGerman.                               Page: 1 / 6Considering the methodological objectives of the reviews, relying exclusively on peer-reviewed literature could omitpotentially relevant work as it is likely that some priority exercises are never formally published (e.g. governmentreports). To achieve a comprehensive review, we consider grey literature as an important element of our mappingreview. A grey literature search plan will be developed and will incorporate three different searching approachesadapted from Godin et al., 2015: (1) grey literature databases (e.g. Grey Literature Report: http://www.greylit.org/; OpenGrey:http://www.opengrey.eu/), (2) targeted websites (e.g. Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN): www.scalingupnutrition.org; Thousand days:www.thousanddays.org; COHRED: www.cohred.org; CHNRI: www.chnri.org/publications.php; IFPRI:www.ifpri.org/search?keyword=priorities; USDA Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition:www.fnic.nal.usda.gov/surveys-reports-and-research/interagency-committee-human-nutrition-research); SUNRAY:www.sunrayafrica.co.za; JPI a healthy diet for a healthy life: http://www.healthydietforhealthylife.eu/; SacklerInstitute http://www.nutritionresearchagenda.org/, AFRESH: www.afresh-project.eu; nutrition donor websites) and (3) consultation with contact experts (could identify other relevant websites). These complementary strategies will beused to minimize the risk of omitting relevant sources such as e.g. government reports (national nutrition prioritysetting exercises). For the MER and ETR, citation searching will be done, using the original list of candidate tools and methodologiesapplicable to the objectives of each review output. Reference:Godin et al. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines forschool-based breakfast programs in Canada Systematic Reviews, 2015.Types of study to be includedMAR: There are no restrictions on the types of study design eligible for inclusion. Grey literature will be searched.MER + ETR: The type of study included in this review will be determined by the quality and quantity of literatureretrieved from the results of the MAR.Condition or domain being studiedMAR: This mapping review aims to systematically identify priority setting exercises at international, national,regional and/or sub-regional levels (e.g. in research, policy, and implementation science) in the nutrition field.MER: Short-term objective: We aim to systematically review and map methodological tools used in priority setting fornutrition. Long-term objective: Perform a gap-analysis to identify the (mis)match between reality of how priorities are being setin countries (practice) versus the developed matrix of methodological tools (theory). Based on this analysis, a realisticmatrix could serve as a guide to decide on when to best use which prioritisation technique.ETR: We aim to systematically evaluate research priority setting exercises to develop an ethical framework using thebest-fit framework. Additionally this framework will be further validated through stakeholder consultation. Theframework could serve as guidance regarding values to be used when setting research priorities in nutrition.Participants/ populationFor all three review outputs, we will only include papers which involve decision-making bodies in the nutrition field.The decision-making body could be active in health/agriculture priority, but there needs to be a specific focus onnutrition priorities. Papers will be excluded when nutrition is not included in the remit of the decision-making body.                               Page: 2 / 6Intervention(s), exposure(s)MAR: Named methods of priority-setting in nutrition are defined as those approaches that aim to set priorities in forexample research, implementation programs, policies, funding agencies. Examples of such priority methods and/orapproaches include expert opinion, workshops, Delphi round, voting, ranking, agenda setting, cost-effectiveness, etc.Such approaches could also form part of a wider methodology or health priority setting, but the approach or methodneeds to be applied to nutrition. It could be a part of a health/agriculture priority, but needs to include a specific focuson nutrition. Papers will be excluded when there is no nutrition focus in the priority setting.  MER: The specific domain focus of this review (research, implementation, funding, etc.) will depend on the results ofthe MAR. ETR: This review will focus on all nutrition priority-setting exercises applied to research.Comparator(s)/ controlFor all three review outputs: Alternative Methods of Priority SettingContextPriority setting exercises at international, national, regional and/or sub-regional levels (e.g. in research, policy, andimplementation science) in the nutrition field will be included. Priority setting exercises at institutional level, e.g. ahospital will be excluded. For the grey literature we will include reports and documents that are available in French, German, Spanish, Englishand Dutch. We will only include final version of documents, i.e. excluding previous versions of documents, drafts, orwhen they have been replaced. Documents need to be applied to nutrition.Outcome(s)Primary outcomesThe main primary outcome of the MAR will be the identification of important characteristics of priority setting toolsand processes, including methodologies used in priority setting exercises (see MER) and values applied to researchpriority setting exercises (see ETR). The output of the MAR will be used to create a checklist to be used to make apreliminary descriptive assessment of the features of each methodology tool/process (see MER). Further explorationof the checklist will be used to determine whether the presence or absence of certain features or characteristics areassociated with better or worse outcomes from the prioritization process. Components of each process will be mappedwithin a matrix or “truth table”. We will also use the output of the MAR for research priority setting exercises toidentify values used in research priority setting exercises to develop and validate an ethical framework to be used inpriority setting. The output of the MAR will be a set of values to be used as basis for the ethical framework to bedeveloped and considered when priorities in nutrition research are being set (see ETR).Not ApplicableSecondary outcomesSecondary outcomes for the MAR are: acceptability of the prioritisation methods/process to stakeholders andsatisfaction with the process. The secondary outcomes that will be included in the MER and ETR will be determined by the content of literatureretrieved from the results of the MAR.Not ApplicableData extraction, (selection and coding)First, the title and abstracts of the identified references (from the search strategy and from additional sources) will bescreened to select relevant studies based on the inclusion criteria. If insufficient information is available from the titleand abstract, the full text will be read. The full text of the selected studies will then be retrieved and read to determinewhether the inclusion criteria are met. The selection process will be performed independently by 2 reviewers (DH andRV). Disagreement between reviewers will be resolved by discussion until a consensus is reached. In cases ofdisagreement, a third reviewer will be consulted (MH).                               Page: 3 / 6For the grey literature search, as abstracts are often unavailable in grey literature documents, items’ abstracts,executive summaries, or table of contents (whichever is available) will be screened in the initial stage. Full textscreening will occur subsequently.Data extraction of the following study characteristics will be performed by two reviewers (DH and RV): type ofstudy, perspective of the study (nutrition-sensitive, nutrition-specific, part of healthy priorities), study setting(geographical: e.g. global, regional, national, sub-national, etc.), applied field (implementation, research, funding,economic, etc.), priority methodology (voting, Delphi, ranking, etc.), characteristics of priority setting (objective, whois represented, initiator, number of experts (invited vs included), target audience, date, focus, funding source, follow-up of the results of the exercise, end-users of the priority setting exercise, and theoretical framework of the exercise).Data extraction sheets will be pilot-tested on 4 papers before applying them to all included studies. Study results and the information necessary to perform evidence synthesis will be extracted independently by tworeviewers. Discrepancies will be identified and resolved through discussion until a consensus is reached. If necessary,a third reviewer will be consulted to obtain a final decision. If two articles present data from the same study, theresults will be included only once in the tables and all the references linked to the original study will be noted.Missing data will be requested from study authors. ETR: The selection process will be performed independently by 2 reviewers (DH and NB). In cases of disagreement,a third reviewer will be consulted (CL).MER: The selection process will be performed independently by 2 reviewers (RV and AB). In cases of disagreement,a third reviewer will be consulted (MH).Risk of bias (quality) assessmentRisk of bias assessment is not applicable to this review.Strategy for data synthesisWe will provide a narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies, structured around the datacharacteristics extracted. We will provide summaries of methodologies. There will be no scope for meta-analysisbecause of the nature of the studies and different outcomes.Analysis of subgroups or subsetsThis is a narrative synthesis and while subgroup analyses may be undertaken it is not possible to specify the groups inadvance.Dissemination plansA paper will be submitted to a leading open access journal in this field. Furthermore, a one page summary report willbe prepared and sent to lead organisations and researchers in nutrition (e.g. Scaling Up Nutrition).Contact details for further informationDr VerstraetenNationalestraat 1552000 AntwerpBelgiumrverstraeten@itg.beOrganisational affiliation of the reviewNutrition and Child Health Unit, Institute of Tropical Medicine (MAR, MER); Department of Food Safety and FoodQuality, Ghent University, Belgium (MAR, ETR); Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences Hasselt University, (ETR);International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), UK (MER); ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK (MAR,MER). This review is affiliated to the EVIDENT collaboration (www.evident-network.org).                               Page: 4 / 6www.itg.beReview teamDr Roosmarijn Verstraeten, Nutrition and Child Health Unit, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Belgium (MAR, MER)Ms Dana Hawwash, Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent University, Belgium (MAR, ETR)Professor Carl Lachat, Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent University, Belgium (ETR)Ms Noémie Bonn, Hasselt University, Belgium (ETR)Professor Wim Pinxten, Hasselt University, Belgium (ETR)Dr Stuart Gillespie, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), UK (MER)Professor Michelle Holdsworth, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK (MAR, MER)Dr Andrew Booth, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK (MAR, MER)Anticipated or actual start date28 July 2016Anticipated completion date31 July 2017Funding sources/sponsorsThe MAR and MER are initiated and managed by Roosmarijn Verstraeten from the Institute of Tropical Medicine.These are financed by EVIDENT which is supported by the Development Cooperation of Belgium (#912502)(http://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/policy/development_cooperation/) and Nutrition Third World (www.nutrition-ntw.org). The ETR is initiated and managed by Dana Hawwash, a PhD student from Ghent University, who has received ascholarship from Schlumberger Foundation's Faculty for the Future Program (www.fftf.slb.com); Prof. C. Lachat(UGent, www.nutrition.ugent.be) and Prof. W. Pinxten (UHasselt, www.uhasselt.be).Conflicts of interestNone knownOther registration detailsThe review and its PROSPERO registration number will be published on the EVIDENT website (www.evident-network.org)LanguageEnglishCountryEngland, BelgiumSubject index terms statusSubject indexing assigned by CRDSubject index termsEthical Review; Humans; Nutritional StatusAny other informationThis review includes three inter-dependent systematic review outputs. Anticipated completion date is presented foreach output: Mapping Review (MAR): December 31, 2016; Methodological Review (MER): July 1, 2017; EthicsReview (ETR): March 31, 2017. In addition, contact email of lead author will change: rverstraeten@itg.be (untilDecember 31, 2016)Stage of reviewOngoing                               Page: 5 / 6Date of registration in PROSPERO01 August 2016Date of publication of this revision01 August 2016Stage of review at time of this submission Started CompletedPreliminary searches Yes   No Piloting of the study selection process   No   No Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria   No   No Data extraction   No   No Risk of bias (quality) assessment   No   No Data analysis   No   No  PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsThe information in this record has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in goodfaith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record,any associated files or external websites. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)                               Page: 6 / 6

Nutrition prioritisation : three inter-dependent (mapping, methodology, and ethics) systematic review outputs

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8164092/file/8164093.pdf

Nutrition prioritisation : three inter-dependent (mapping, methodology, and ethics) systematic review outputs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography