Developing a matrix to identify and prioritise research recommendations in HIV prevention

A rapid priority setting exercise combining existing, emergent evidence with stakeholder knowledge identified broad topic uncertainties

OBJECTIVES

The project aimed to rapidly identify priority topic uncertainties as a first step to identify future systematic review questions of pertinence to key international fecal incontinence (FI) stakeholders (patients, carers, health care professionals, policy makers and voluntary, community, or social enterprise representatives). The paper's aim is to share our methods, experience, and learning with other groups planning to deliver a rapid priority setting exercise.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

An evidence gap map incorporated three evidence streams: emerging evidence identified through horizon scanning; existing evidence identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases; and FI stakeholder insights collected through an international survey. The evidence gap map was presented during an online workshop with stakeholders, where they shared their expertize to expand, refine, and rank topic uncertainties using ideation techniques, focus group discussions, consensus techniques, and online polling.

RESULTS

The multistep methods used to deliver this priority setting exercise resulted in identification of broad priority topic uncertainties. The methods appear to have high acceptability and engagement with participants but await full evaluation.

CONCLUSION

This project successfully followed robust methodology, building upon frameworks from published priority setting and evidence gap mapping projects while incorporating strong patient and public involvement components.

What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products

BACKGROUND

The need for systematic methods for reviewing evidence is continuously increasing. Evidence mapping is one emerging method. There are no authoritative recommendations for what constitutes an evidence map or what methods should be used, and anecdotal evidence suggests heterogeneity in both. Our objectives are to identify published evidence maps and to compare and contrast the presented definitions of evidence mapping, the domains used to classify data in evidence maps, and the form the evidence map takes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of publications that presented results with a process termed "evidence mapping" or included a figure called an "evidence map." We identified publications from searches of ten databases through 8/21/2015, reference mining, and consulting topic experts. We abstracted the research question, the unit of analysis, the search methods and search period covered, and the country of origin. Data were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine publications met inclusion criteria. Published evidence maps varied in their definition and the form of the evidence map. Of the 31 definitions provided, 67 % described the purpose as identification of gaps and 58 % referenced a stakeholder engagement process or user-friendly product. All evidence maps explicitly used a systematic approach to evidence synthesis. Twenty-six publications referred to a figure or table explicitly called an "evidence map," eight referred to an online database as the evidence map, and five stated they used a mapping methodology but did not present a visual depiction of the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The principal conclusion of our evaluation of studies that call themselves "evidence maps" is that the implied definition of what constitutes an evidence map is a systematic search of a broad field to identify gaps in knowledge and/or future research needs that presents results in a user-friendly format, often a visual figure or graph, or a searchable database. Foundational work is needed to better standardize the methods and products of an evidence map so that researchers and policymakers will know what to expect of this new type of evidence review.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Although an a priori protocol was developed, no registration was completed; this review did not fit the PROSPERO format.

Investigating combination HIV prevention: isolated interventions or complex system

Introduction

Treatment as prevention has mobilized new opportunities in preventing HIV transmission and has led to bold new UNAIDS targets in testing, treatment coverage and transmission reduction. These will require not only an increase in investment but also a deeper understanding of the dynamics of combining behavioural, biomedical and structural HIV prevention interventions. High-income countries are making substantial investments in combination HIV prevention, but is this investment leading to a deeper understanding of how to combine interventions? The combining of interventions involves complexity, with many strategies interacting with non-linear and multiplying rather than additive effects.

Discussion

Drawing on a recent scoping study of the published research evidence in HIV prevention in high-income countries, this paper argues that there is a gap between the evidence currently available and the evidence needed to guide the achieving of these bold targets. The emphasis of HIV prevention intervention research continues to look at one intervention at a time in isolation from its interactions with other interventions, the community and the socio-political context of their implementation. To understand and evaluate the role of a combination of interventions, we need to understand not only what works, but in what circumstances, what role the parts need to play in their relationship with each other, when the combination needs to adapt and identify emergent effects of any resulting synergies. There is little development of evidence-based indicators on how interventions in combination should achieve that strategic advantage and synergy. This commentary discusses the implications of this ongoing situation for future research and the required investment in partnership. We suggest that systems science approaches, which are being increasingly applied in other areas of public health, could provide an expanded vocabulary and analytic tools for understanding these complex interactions, relationships and emergent effects.

Conclusions

Relying on the current linear but disconnected approaches to intervention research and evidence we will miss the potential to achieve and understand system-level synergies. Given the challenges in sustaining public health and HIV prevention investment, meeting the bold UNAIDS targets that have been set is likely to be dependent on achieving systems level synergies.