Cargando…
Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas
INTRODUCTION: The Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28780546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015500 |
_version_ | 1783285298319327232 |
---|---|
author | Hoekstra, Dyon Mütsch, Margot Kien, Christina Gerhardus, Ansgar Lhachimi, Stefan K |
author_facet | Hoekstra, Dyon Mütsch, Margot Kien, Christina Gerhardus, Ansgar Lhachimi, Stefan K |
author_sort | Hoekstra, Dyon |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: The Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5724103 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57241032017-12-19 Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas Hoekstra, Dyon Mütsch, Margot Kien, Christina Gerhardus, Ansgar Lhachimi, Stefan K BMJ Open Public Health INTRODUCTION: The Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5724103/ /pubmed/28780546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015500 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Public Health Hoekstra, Dyon Mütsch, Margot Kien, Christina Gerhardus, Ansgar Lhachimi, Stefan K Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas |
title | Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas |
title_full | Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas |
title_fullStr | Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas |
title_full_unstemmed | Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas |
title_short | Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas |
title_sort | identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: a protocol for a modified delphi study in switzerland to inform future research agendas |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28780546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015500 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hoekstradyon identifyingandprioritisingsystematicreviewtopicswithpublichealthstakeholdersaprotocolforamodifieddelphistudyinswitzerlandtoinformfutureresearchagendas AT mutschmargot identifyingandprioritisingsystematicreviewtopicswithpublichealthstakeholdersaprotocolforamodifieddelphistudyinswitzerlandtoinformfutureresearchagendas AT kienchristina identifyingandprioritisingsystematicreviewtopicswithpublichealthstakeholdersaprotocolforamodifieddelphistudyinswitzerlandtoinformfutureresearchagendas AT gerhardusansgar identifyingandprioritisingsystematicreviewtopicswithpublichealthstakeholdersaprotocolforamodifieddelphistudyinswitzerlandtoinformfutureresearchagendas AT lhachimistefank identifyingandprioritisingsystematicreviewtopicswithpublichealthstakeholdersaprotocolforamodifieddelphistudyinswitzerlandtoinformfutureresearchagendas |