A framework for effective collaboration between specialist and broad-spectrum groups for delivering priority Cochrane reviews

A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to systematically review the literature for proposed approaches and exercises conducted to prioritize topics or questions for systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses in any health-related area.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review. We searched Medline and CINAHL databases in addition to Cochrane website and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 31 articles reporting on 29 studies: seven proposed approaches for prioritization and 25 conducted prioritization exercises (three studies did both). The included studies addressed the following fields: clinical (n = 19; 66%), public health (n = 10; 34%), and health policy and systems (n = 8; 28%), with six studies (21%) addressing more than one field. We categorized prioritization into 11 steps clustered in 3 phases (preprioritization, prioritization, and postprioritization). Twenty-eight studies (97%) involved or proposed involving stakeholders in the priority-setting process. These 28 studies referred to twelve stakeholder categories, most frequently to health care providers (n = 24; 86%) and researchers (n = 21; 75%). A common framework of 25 prioritization criteria was derived, clustered in 10 domains.

CONCLUSION

We identified literature that addresses different aspects of prioritizing topics or questions for evidence syntheses, including prioritization steps and criteria. The identified steps and criteria can serve as a menu of options to select from, as judged appropriate to the context.

Use of multi-attribute decision-making to inform prioritization of Cochrane review topics relevant to rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Limited resources imply the need for prioritization; this also applies to the conduct of Cochrane Reviews. Therefore, processes for identifying the most important topics for review should be determined.

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe some examples of prioritization approaches used within Cochrane; to introduce the concept of multi-criteria decision analysis, provide an example of how this is being used to determine the relative importance of research questions in musculoskeletal health by the Australasian Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials (ANZMUSC) network and how a similar approach could be used to inform Cochrane Rehabilitation priorities.

METHODS

A narrative overview of the Cochrane Methods Priority Setting Group and new guidance from Cochrane on priority setting; a description of the ANZMUSC prioritization project and the proposed outline of a prioritization process that could be undertaken by Review Groups related to rehabilitation.

RESULTS

There are no explicit processes for prioritization for Cochrane Reviews that involve multi-criteria decision making, even though such approaches appear to be potentially useful and may overcome some disadvantages of alternative approaches.

DISCUSSION

Although the ANZMUSC prioritization project is not yet complete nor shown to be successful, it may offer a useful road-map for developing a transparent method of prioritizing which research topics to pursue, in a way that could be easily implemented and updated.

Cochrane acute respiratory infections group's stakeholder engagement project identified systematic review priority areas

OBJECTIVE

Cochrane acute respiratory infections (ARIs) group conducts systematic reviews of the evidence for treatment and prevention of ARIs. We report the results of a prioritization project, aiming to identify highest priority systematic review topics.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

The project consisted of two phases. Phase 1 analyzed the gap between existing randomized controlled trials and Cochrane systematic reviews (reported previously). Phase 2 (reported here) consisted of a two-round survey. In round 1, respondents prioritized 68 topics and suggested up to 10 additional topics; in round 2, respondents prioritized top 25 topics from round 1.

RESULTS

Respondents included clinicians, researchers, systematic reviewers, allied health, patients, and carers, from 33 different countries. In round 1, 154 respondents identified 20 priority topics, most commonly selecting topics in nonspecific ARIs, influenza, and common cold. Fifty respondents also collectively suggested 134 additional topics. In round 2, 78 respondents prioritized top 25 topics, most commonly in the areas of nonspecific ARIs, pneumonia, and influenza.

CONCLUSION

We generated a list of priority systematic review topics to guide the Cochrane ARI group's systematic review work for the next 24 months. Stakeholder involvement enhanced the transparency of the process and will increase the usability and relevance of the group's work to stakeholders.

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 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.

Coverage of mental health and substance misuse topics in the Cochrane review system

Aims. To assess the breadth of mental and substance coverage in the Cochrane review system. Methods. All mental health and substance entries were identified from the 2005 to April 2012 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Results. A total of 1019 entries focused on mental health or substance misuse, with 698 (68.5%) being completed reviews. One out of every five entries focused on serious mental illness/psychosis. Systematic reviews addressing unipolar depression, dementia and certain substance disorders also appeared well-represented. In contrast, a number of impairing disorders frequently seen in practice received less attention, with bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and autism spectrum disorders each accounting for less than 2% of the entries. The majority of interventions reviewed involved medication (57.1%), although this was not the case for a number of childhood-onset disorders. Some diagnostic areas (sleep, anxiety, mood and substance) were addressed by multiple Cochrane review groups (CRGs). Conclusions. The Cochrane Collaboration is well poised to be a strong guiding influence to those seeking to employ evidence-based mental health care. Broadening its diagnostic coverage and diversifying types of intervention reviewed would probably further maximize its impact. A more centralized and directed approach of prioritizing topics could help ensure more comprehensive coverage.