Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research

Health professionals implicit bias of patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Research indicates that people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) receive inferior healthcare and experience poorer health outcomes compared with those with higher SES, in part due to health professional (HP) bias. We conducted a scoping review of the impact of HP bias about SES on clinical decision-making and its effect on the care of adults with lower SES.

DESIGN

JBI scoping review methods were used to perform a systematic comprehensive search for literature. The scoping review protocol has been published in BMJ Open.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, ASSIA, Scopus and CINAHL were searched, from the first available start date of the individual database to March 2023. Two independent reviewers filtered and screened papers.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies of all designs were included in this review to provide a comprehensive map of the existing evidence of the impact of HP bias of SES on clinical decision-making and its effect on the care for people with lower SES.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were gathered using an adapted JBI data extraction tool for systematic scoping reviews.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven papers were included from 1975 to 2023. 35 (73%) of the included primary research studies reported an association between HP SES bias and decision-making. Thirteen (27%) of the included primary research studies did not find an association between HP SES bias and decision-making. Stereotyping and bias can adversely affect decision-making when the HP is fatigued or has a high cognitive load. There is evidence of intersectionality which can have a powerful cumulative effect on HP assessment and subsequent decision-making. HP implicit bias may be mitigated through the assertiveness of the patient with low SES.

CONCLUSION

HP decision-making is at times influenced by non-medical factors for people of low SES, and assumptions are made based on implicit bias and stereotyping, which compound or exacerbate health inequalities. Research that focuses on decision-making when the HP has a high cognitive load, would help the health community to better understand this potential influence.

Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health

BACKGROUND

Despite that stakeholder participation in evidence synthesis could result in more useful outcomes, there are few examples of processes that actively involve them in synthesis work. Techniques are needed that engage diverse stakeholders as equal partners in knowledge co-production. The aims of this paper are to describe an innovative participatory process of synthesising a large body of academic research products and compare the findings of the participatory process against two traditional approaches to synthesis: a rapid review and a structured review.

METHODS

First, a rapid synthesis of all research outputs (n = 86) was conducted by researchers with in-depth knowledge of the collaboration's research. Second, a team of researchers and service providers conducted a structured synthesis of seventy-eight peer-reviewed articles and reports generated by the collaboration. Fifty-five publications were brought forward for further synthesis in part three, a facilitated participatory synthesis. Finally, we explored the value added by the participatory method by comparing findings generated across the three synthesis approaches.

RESULTS

Twelve researchers and 11 service providers/policy partners-8 self-identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander-participated in two facilitated workshops (totalling 4 h). Workshop activities engaged participants in reviewing publication summaries, identifying key findings, and evoked review, discussion and refinement. The process explicitly linked experiential knowledge to citations of academic research, clearly connecting the two knowledge types. In comparing the findings generated across all three methods we found mostly consistencies; the few discrepancies did not contradict but gave deeper insights into statements created by the other methods. The participatory synthesis generated the most, detailed, and unique findings, and contextual insights about the relevance of the key messages for practice.

CONCLUSION

The participatory synthesis engaged stakeholders with diverse backgrounds and skillsets in synthesising a large body of evidence in a relatively short time. The participatory approach produced findings comparable to traditional synthesis methods while extending knowledge and identifying lessons most relevant for the participants who, ultimately, are the end users of the research. This process will interest other large-scale research collaborations seeking to engage stakeholders in evidence synthesis.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3.

CONSENSUS

The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4.

DISSEMINATION

We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations.

CONCLUSION

Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Tools to guide clinical discussions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and/or sleep for health promotion between primary care providers and adults accessing care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health care providers have reported low knowledge, skill, and confidence for discussing movement behaviours (i.e., physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep), which may be improved with the use of tools to guide movement behaviour discussions in their practice. Past reviews have examined the psychometric properties, scoring, and behavioural outcomes of physical activity discussion tools. However, the features, perceptions, and effectiveness of discussion tools for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and/or sleep have not yet been synthesized. The aim of this review was to report and appraise tools for movement behaviour discussions between health care providers and adults 18 + years in a primary care context within Canada or analogous countries.

METHODS

An integrated knowledge translation approach guided this review, whereby a working group of experts in medicine, knowledge translation, communications, kinesiology, and health promotion was engaged from research question formation to interpretation of findings. Three search approaches were used (i.e., peer-reviewed, grey literature, and forward searches) to identify studies reporting on perceptions and/or effectiveness of tools for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and/or sleep. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

In total, 135 studies reporting on 61 tools (i.e., 51 on physical activity, one on sleep, and nine combining two movement behaviours) met inclusion criteria. Included tools served the purposes of assessment (n = 57), counselling (n = 50), prescription (n = 18), and/or referral (n = 12) of one or more movement behaviour. Most tools were used or intended for use by physicians, followed by nurses/nurse practitioners (n = 11), and adults accessing care (n = 10). Most tools were also used or intended to be used with adults without chronic conditions aged 18-64 years (n = 34), followed by adults with chronic conditions (n = 18). The quality of the 116 studies that evaluated tool effectiveness varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Many tools were positively perceived and were deemed effective at enhancing knowledge of, confidence for, ability in, and frequency of movement behaviour discussions. Future tools should guide discussions of all movement behaviours in an integrated manner in line with the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines. Practically, this review offers seven evidence-based recommendations that may guide future tool development and implementation.

The effect domains, measures, and methods reported in pediatric-specialized multidisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation programs: An integrated review

OBJECTIVES

Specialized pain rehabilitation is recognized as the treatment of choice for youth with pain-related disability. Appropriate outcomes for program evaluation are critical. This study aimed to summarize the effect domains and methods used to evaluate pediatric-specialized outpatient pain rehabilition programs, map them to the PedIMMPACT statement, and highlight future directions.

METHODS

An integrated review framework, incorporating stakeholders, was used. Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published in 1999-2021 featuring the treatment effects of specialized outpatient pain rehabilitation on youth with pain-related disability and their parents. Selected studies were critically appraised using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies of Diverse Design, organized by study characteristics, and analyzed using constant comparison.

RESULTS

From the 1951 potentially relevant titles, 37 studies were selected. Twenty-five effects targeted youth and 24 focused on parents, with a maximum of 15 youth and 11 parent effect domains (median = 5 domains per study). Although most studies measured a combination of effect domains and were inclusive of some recommended in the PedIMMPACT statement, no effect was measured consistently across studies. Youth physical functioning and parent emotional functioning were measured most often. Eighty-five instruments were used to assess youth outcomes and 59 for parents, with self-report questionnaires dominating.

DISCUSSION

A lack of standardization exists associated with the domains and methods used to evaluate the effects of pediatric-specialized outpatient pain rehabilitation programs, hindering comparisons. Future program evaluations should be founded on their theory, aim, and anticipated outcomes.

Health professional's implicit bias of adult patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite efforts to improve population health and reduce health inequalities, higher morbidity and mortality rates for people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) persist. People with lower SES are said to receive worse care and have worse outcomes compared with those with higher SES, in part due to bias and prejudice. Implicit biases adversely affect professional patient relationships and influence healthcare-related decision-making. A better understanding of the relationship between SES and healthcare-related decision-making is therefore essential to address socioeconomic inequalities in health.

AIM

To scope the reported impact of health professionals bias about SES on clinical decision-making and its effect on the care of adults with lower SES in wider literature.

METHODS

This scoping review will use Joanna Briggs Institute methods and will report its findings in line with Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols and Scoping Reviews guidelines. Data analysis, interpretation and reporting will be underpinned by the PAGER (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for Practice and Research recommendations) framework and input from a patient and public interest representative. A systematic search for literature will be conducted on various, pertinent databases to identify relevant literature such as peer-reviewed articles, editorials, discussion papers and empirical research papers. Additionally, other sources of relevant literature such as policies, guidelines, reports and conference abstracts, identified through key website searches will be considered for inclusion.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. The results will be disseminated through an open access peer-reviewed international journal, conference presentations and a plain language summary that will be shared with the public and other relevant stakeholders.

Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research

BACKGROUND

Transparent reporting of rapid reviews enables appropriate use of research findings and dissemination strategies can strengthen uptake and impact for the targeted knowledge users, including policy-makers and health system managers. The aim of this literature review was to understand reporting and dissemination approaches for rapid reviews and provide an overview in the context of health policy and systems research.

METHODS

A literature review and descriptive summary of the reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews was conducted, focusing on available guidance and methods, considerations for engagement with knowledge users, and optimizing dissemination. MEDLINE, PubMed, Google scholar, as well as relevant websites and reference lists were searched from January 2017 to March 2021 to identify the relevant literature with no language restrictions. Content was abstracted and charted.

RESULTS

The literature review found limited guidance specific to rapid reviews. Building on the barriers and facilitators to systematic review use, we provide practical recommendations on different approaches and methods for reporting and disseminating expedited knowledge synthesis considering the needs of health policy and systems knowledge users. Reporting should balance comprehensive accounting of the research process and findings with what is "good enough" or sufficient to meet the requirements of the knowledge users, while considering the time and resources available to conduct a review. Typical approaches may be used when planning the dissemination of rapid review findings; such as peer-reviewed publications or symposia and clear and ongoing engagement with knowledge users in crafting the messages is essential so they are appropriately tailored to the target audience. Consideration should be given to providing different products for different audiences. Dissemination measures and bibliometrics are also useful to gauge impact and reach.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited guidance specific to the reporting and dissemination of rapid reviews is available. Although approaches to expedited synthesis for health policy and systems research vary, considerations for the reporting and dissemination of findings are pertinent to all.

Applications of digital health for public health responses to COVID-19: a systematic scoping review of artificial intelligence, telehealth and related technologies

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare services, faced with the twin challenges in acutely meeting the medical needs of patients with COVID-19 while continuing essential services for non-COVID-19 illnesses. The need to re-invent, re-organize and transform healthcare and co-ordinate clinical services at a population level is urgent as countries that controlled initial outbreaks start to experience resurgences. A wide range of digital health solutions have been proposed, although the extent of successful real-world applications of these technologies is unclear. This study aims to review applications of artificial intelligence (AI), telehealth, and other relevant digital health solutions for public health responses in the healthcare operating environment amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic scoping review was performed to identify potentially relevant reports. Key findings include a large body of evidence for various clinical and operational applications of telehealth (40.1%, n = 99/247). Although a large quantity of reports investigated applications of artificial intelligence (AI) (44.9%, n = 111/247) and big data analytics (36.0%, n = 89/247), weaknesses in study design limit generalizability and translation, highlighting the need for more pragmatic real-world investigations. There were also few descriptions of applications for the internet of things (IoT) (2.0%, n = 5/247), digital platforms for communication (DC) (10.9%, 27/247), digital solutions for data management (DM) (1.6%, n = 4/247), and digital structural screening (DS) (8.9%, n = 22/247); representing gaps and opportunities for digital public health. Finally, the performance of digital health technology for operational applications related to population surveillance and points of entry have not been adequately evaluated.

Participatory Action Research Applied to an Ear, Nose, and Throat Specialty Service Redesign in Remote Australia: A Mixed-Methods Study of Key Stakeholder Perspectives

This mixed-methods study reports on the key stakeholders’ perspectives on the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) service redesign in remote Australia, using a participatory action research (PAR) approach. A primary health care (PHC) clinician survey was conducted to assess local needs and possible educational gaps in clinical knowledge. This was followed by an internal stakeholder forum and a follow-up survey with Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service staff to gain their perspectives on current service delivery and table ideas for a new ENT health service model. Qualitative data were analyzed inductively and grouped in emerging themes. Quantitative data were imported into tables and analyzed descriptively. PAR allowed for input from 19 PHC clinicians, 10 face-to-face stakeholders perspectives, and 18 stakeholder follow-up survey respondents. Four themes emerged: 1. Training for health workers in ENT management; 2. Improved local service access; 3. New referral pathways to improve continuity of care; and 4. Introduction of telehealth. PAR engaged key stakeholders, identifying gaps in ENT service delivery, and guided the development of the new service model. The inclusion of stakeholders throughout the service redesign process is likely to create a more sustainable model of care which already has local “buy-in”.

Community health programs delivered through information and communications technology in high-income countries: a scoping review (Preprint)

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has required widespread and rapid adoption of information and communications technology (ICT) platforms by health professionals. Transitioning health programs from face-to-face to remote delivery using ICT platforms has introduced new challenges.

Objective

The objective of this review is to scope for ICT-delivered health programs implemented within the community health setting in high-income countries and rapidly disseminate findings to health professionals.

Methods

The Joanna Briggs Institute’s scoping review methodology guided the review of the literature.

Results

The search retrieved 7110 unique citations. Each title and abstract was screened by at least two reviewers, resulting in 399 citations for full-text review. Of these 399 citations, 72 (18%) were included. An additional 27 citations were identified through reviewing the reference lists of the included studies, resulting in 99 citations. Citations examined 83 ICT-delivered programs from 19 high-income countries. Variations in program design, ICT platforms, research design, and outcomes were evident.

Conclusions

Included programs and research were heterogeneous, addressing prevalent chronic diseases. Evidence was retrieved for the effectiveness of nurse and allied health ICT-delivered programs. Findings indicated that outcomes for participants receiving ICT-delivered programs, when compared with participants receiving in-person programs, were either equivalent or better. Gaps included a paucity of co-designed programs, qualitative research around group programs, programs for patients and carers, and evaluation of cost-effectiveness. During COVID-19 and beyond, health professionals in the community health setting are encouraged to build on existing knowledge and address evidence gaps by developing and evaluating innovative ICT-delivered programs in collaboration with consumers and carers.