Squaring the circle: a priority-setting method for evidence-based service development, reconciling research with multiple stakeholder views

The effectiveness of knowledge-sharing techniques and approaches in research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), funds, enables and delivers world-leading health and social care research to improve people's health and wellbeing. To achieve this aim, effective knowledge sharing (two-way knowledge sharing between researchers and stakeholders to create new knowledge and enable change in policy and practice) is needed. To date, it is not known which knowledge sharing techniques and approaches are used or how effective these are in creating new knowledge that can lead to changes in policy and practice in NIHR funded studies.

METHODS

In this restricted systematic review, electronic databases [MEDLINE, The Health Management Information Consortium (including the Department of Health's Library and Information Services and King's Fund Information and Library Services)] were searched for published NIHR funded studies that described knowledge sharing between researchers and other stakeholders. One researcher performed title and abstract, full paper screening and quality assessment (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist) with a 20% sample independently screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was adopted.

RESULTS

In total 9897 records were identified. After screening, 17 studies were included. Five explicit forms of knowledge sharing studies were identified: embedded models, knowledge brokering, stakeholder engagement and involvement of non-researchers in the research or service design process and organisational collaborative partnerships between universities and healthcare organisations. Collectively, the techniques and approaches included five types of stakeholders and worked with them at all stages of the research cycle, except the stage of formation of the research design and preparation of funding application. Seven studies (using four of the approaches) gave examples of new knowledge creation, but only one study (using an embedded model approach) gave an example of a resulting change in practice. The use of a theory, model or framework to explain the knowledge sharing process was identified in six studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Five knowledge sharing techniques and approaches were reported in the included NIHR funded studies, and seven studies identified the creation of new knowledge. However, there was little investigation of the effectiveness of these approaches in influencing change in practice or policy.

Reconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making

Background

Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations.

Objective

To describe the decision‐making process for establishing consensus used by a diverse panel of stakeholders to reconcile two sets of quality improvement priorities (provider/decision maker priorities n=9; patient/family priorities n=19) into a single prioritized list.

Design

We employed a modified Delphi process with a diverse group of panellists to reconcile priorities for improving care of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Proceedings were audio‐recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis to explore the decision‐making process for establishing consensus.

Setting and participants

Nine panellists including three providers, three decision makers and three family members of previously critically ill patients.

Results

Panellists rated and revised 28 priorities over three rounds of review and reached consensus on the “Top 5” priorities for quality improvement: transition of patient care from ICU to hospital ward; family presence and effective communication; delirium screening and management; early mobilization; and transition of patient care between ICU providers. Four themes were identified as important for establishing consensus: storytelling (sharing personal experiences), amalgamating priorities (negotiating priority scope), considering evaluation criteria and having a priority champion.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating families of patients into a multistakeholder prioritization exercise. The approach described can be used to guide consensus building and reconcile priorities of diverse stakeholder groups.