Cargando…

Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews

BACKGROUND: Arguments supporting the involvement of users in research have even more weight when involving the public in systematic reviews of research. We aimed to explore the potential for public involvement in systematic reviews of observational and qualitative studies. METHODS: Two consultative...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oliver, Kathryn, Rees, Rebecca, Brady, Louca‐Mai, Kavanagh, Josephine, Oliver, Sandy, Thomas, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5008219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26099487
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1145
_version_ 1782451331021144064
author Oliver, Kathryn
Rees, Rebecca
Brady, Louca‐Mai
Kavanagh, Josephine
Oliver, Sandy
Thomas, James
author_facet Oliver, Kathryn
Rees, Rebecca
Brady, Louca‐Mai
Kavanagh, Josephine
Oliver, Sandy
Thomas, James
author_sort Oliver, Kathryn
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Arguments supporting the involvement of users in research have even more weight when involving the public in systematic reviews of research. We aimed to explore the potential for public involvement in systematic reviews of observational and qualitative studies. METHODS: Two consultative workshops were carried out with a group of young people (YP) aged 12–17 years to examine two ongoing reviews about obesity: one about children's views and one on the link between obesity and educational attainment. YP were invited to comment on the credibility of themes, to propose elements of interventions, to suggest links between educational attainment and obesity and to comment on their plausibility. RESULTS: Researchers had more confidence in review findings, after checking that themes identified as important by YP were emphasised appropriately. Researchers were able to use factors linking obesity and attainment identified as important by YP to identify limitations in the scope of extant research. CONCLUSION: Consultative workshops helped researchers draw on the perspectives of YP when interpreting and reflecting upon two systematic reviews. Involving users in judging synthesis credibility and identifying concepts was easier than involving them in interpreting findings. Involvement activities for reviews should be designed with review stage, purpose and group in mind. © 2015 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5008219
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50082192016-09-16 Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews Oliver, Kathryn Rees, Rebecca Brady, Louca‐Mai Kavanagh, Josephine Oliver, Sandy Thomas, James Res Synth Methods Original Articles BACKGROUND: Arguments supporting the involvement of users in research have even more weight when involving the public in systematic reviews of research. We aimed to explore the potential for public involvement in systematic reviews of observational and qualitative studies. METHODS: Two consultative workshops were carried out with a group of young people (YP) aged 12–17 years to examine two ongoing reviews about obesity: one about children's views and one on the link between obesity and educational attainment. YP were invited to comment on the credibility of themes, to propose elements of interventions, to suggest links between educational attainment and obesity and to comment on their plausibility. RESULTS: Researchers had more confidence in review findings, after checking that themes identified as important by YP were emphasised appropriately. Researchers were able to use factors linking obesity and attainment identified as important by YP to identify limitations in the scope of extant research. CONCLUSION: Consultative workshops helped researchers draw on the perspectives of YP when interpreting and reflecting upon two systematic reviews. Involving users in judging synthesis credibility and identifying concepts was easier than involving them in interpreting findings. Involvement activities for reviews should be designed with review stage, purpose and group in mind. © 2015 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-06-22 2015-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5008219/ /pubmed/26099487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1145 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Oliver, Kathryn
Rees, Rebecca
Brady, Louca‐Mai
Kavanagh, Josephine
Oliver, Sandy
Thomas, James
Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews
title Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews
title_full Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews
title_fullStr Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews
title_full_unstemmed Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews
title_short Broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews
title_sort broadening public participation in systematic reviews: a case example involving young people in two configurative reviews
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5008219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26099487
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1145
work_keys_str_mv AT oliverkathryn broadeningpublicparticipationinsystematicreviewsacaseexampleinvolvingyoungpeopleintwoconfigurativereviews
AT reesrebecca broadeningpublicparticipationinsystematicreviewsacaseexampleinvolvingyoungpeopleintwoconfigurativereviews
AT bradyloucamai broadeningpublicparticipationinsystematicreviewsacaseexampleinvolvingyoungpeopleintwoconfigurativereviews
AT kavanaghjosephine broadeningpublicparticipationinsystematicreviewsacaseexampleinvolvingyoungpeopleintwoconfigurativereviews
AT oliversandy broadeningpublicparticipationinsystematicreviewsacaseexampleinvolvingyoungpeopleintwoconfigurativereviews
AT thomasjames broadeningpublicparticipationinsystematicreviewsacaseexampleinvolvingyoungpeopleintwoconfigurativereviews