User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review: using structured methods to enhance the clinical relevance, usefulness and usability of a systematic review update

Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis

Background

Up to 30% of children have constipation at some stage in their life. Although often short-lived, in one-third of children it progresses to chronic functional constipation, potentially with overflow incontinence. Optimal management strategies remain unclear.

Objective

To determine the most effective interventions, and combinations and sequences of interventions, for childhood chronic functional constipation, and understand how they can best be implemented.

Methods

Key stakeholders, comprising two parents of children with chronic functional constipation, two adults who experienced childhood chronic functional constipation and four health professional/continence experts, contributed throughout the research. We conducted pragmatic mixed-method reviews. For all reviews, included studies focused on any interventions/strategies, delivered in any setting, to improve any outcomes in children (0-18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of chronic functional constipation (excluding studies of diagnosis/assessment) included. Dual reviewers applied inclusion criteria and assessed risk of bias. One reviewer extracted data, checked by a second reviewer. Scoping review: We systematically searched electronic databases (including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (January 2011 to March 2020) and grey literature, including studies (any design) reporting any intervention/strategy. Data were coded, tabulated and mapped. Research quality was not evaluated. Systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness: For each different intervention, we included existing systematic reviews judged to be low risk of bias (using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews), updating any meta-analyses with new randomised controlled trials. Where there was no existing low risk of bias systematic reviews, we included randomised controlled trials and other primary studies. The risk of bias was judged using design-specific tools. Evidence was synthesised narratively, and a process of considered judgement was used to judge certainty in the evidence as high, moderate, low, very low or insufficient evidence. Economic synthesis: Included studies (any design, English-language) detailed intervention-related costs. Studies were categorised as cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit, and reporting quality evaluated using the consensus health economic criteria checklist. Systematic review of implementation factors: Included studies reported data relating to implementation barriers or facilitators. Using a best-fit framework synthesis approach, factors were synthesised around the consolidated framework for implementation research domains.

Results

Stakeholders prioritised outcomes, developed a model which informed evidence synthesis and identified evidence gaps.

Scoping review

651 studies, including 190 randomised controlled trials and 236 primary studies, conservatively reported 48 interventions/intervention combinations.

Effectiveness systematic reviews

studies explored service delivery models (n = 15); interventions delivered by families/carers (n = 32), wider children's workforce (n = 21), continence teams (n = 31) and specialist consultant-led teams (n = 42); complementary therapies (n = 15); and psychosocial interventions (n = 4). One intervention (probiotics) had moderate-quality evidence; all others had low to very-low-quality evidence. Thirty-one studies reported evidence relating to cost or resource use; data were insufficient to support generalisable conclusions. One hundred and six studies described implementation barriers and facilitators.

Conclusions

Management of childhood chronic functional constipation is complex. The available evidence remains limited, with small, poorly conducted and reported studies. Many evidence gaps were identified. Treatment recommendations within current clinical guidelines remain largely unchanged, but there is a need for research to move away from considering effectiveness of single interventions. Clinical care and future studies must consider the individual characteristics of children.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019159008.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 128470) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Co-designing nutrition interventions with consumers: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is little known about nutrition intervention research involving consumer co-design. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on the current use and extent of consumer co-design in nutrition interventions.

METHODS

This scoping review is in line with the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute using an adapted 2weekSR approach. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane. Only studies that included consumers in the co-design and met the 'Collaborate' or 'Empower' levels of the International Association of Public Participation's Public Participation Spectrum were included. Studies were synthesised according to two main concepts: (1) co-design for (2) nutrition interventions.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 8157 articles, of which 19 studies were included (comprising 29 articles). The studies represented a range of intervention types and participants from seven countries. Sixteen studies were published in the past 5 years. Co-design was most often used for intervention development, and only two studies reported a partnership with consumers across all stages of research. Overall, consumer involvement was not well documented. No preferred co-design framework or approach was reported across the various studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumer co-design for nutrition interventions has become more frequent in recent years, but genuine partnerships with consumers across all stages of nutrition intervention research remain uncommon. There is an opportunity to improve the reporting of consumer involvement in co-design and enable equal partnerships with consumers in nutrition research.

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Conservative interventions for treating urinary incontinence in women: an Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Urinary incontinence (UI) is the involuntary loss of urine and can be caused by several different conditions. The common types of UI are stress (SUI), urgency (UUI) and mixed (MUI). A wide range of interventions can be delivered to reduce the symptoms of UI in women. Conservative interventions are generally recommended as the first line of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effects of conservative interventions for treating UI in women.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library to January 2021 (CDSR; 2021, Issue 1) and included any Cochrane Review that included studies with women aged 18 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of SUI, UUI or MUI, and investigating a conservative intervention aimed at improving or curing UI. We included reviews that compared a conservative intervention with 'control' (which included placebo, no treatment or usual care), another conservative intervention or another active, but non-conservative, intervention. A stakeholder group informed the selection and synthesis of evidence. Two overview authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data and judged review quality, resolving disagreements through discussion. Primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported cure or improvement and condition-specific quality of life. We judged the risk of bias in included reviews using the ROBIS tool. We judged the certainty of evidence within the reviews based on the GRADE approach. Evidence relating to SUI, UUI or all types of UI combined (AUI) were synthesised separately. The AUI group included evidence relating to participants with MUI, as well as from studies that combined women with different diagnoses (i.e. SUI, UUI and MUI) and studies in which the type of UI was unclear.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 relevant Cochrane Reviews. Seven focused on physical therapies; five on education, behavioural and lifestyle advice; one on mechanical devices; one on acupuncture and one on yoga. Fourteen focused on non-conservative interventions but had a comparison with a conservative intervention. No reviews synthesised evidence relating to psychological therapies. There were 112 unique trials (including 8975 women) that had primary outcome data included in at least one analysis. Stress urinary incontinence (14 reviews) Conservative intervention versus control: there was moderate or high certainty evidence that pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), PFMT plus biofeedback and cones were more beneficial than control for curing or improving UI. PFMT and intravaginal devices improved quality of life compared to control. One conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: for cure and improvement of UI, there was moderate or high certainty evidence that: continence pessary plus PFMT was more beneficial than continence pessary alone; PFMT plus educational intervention was more beneficial than cones; more-intensive PFMT was more beneficial than less-intensive PFMT; and PFMT plus an adherence strategy was more beneficial than PFMT alone. There was no moderate or high certainty evidence for quality of life. Urgency urinary incontinence (five reviews) Conservative intervention versus control: there was moderate to high-certainty evidence demonstrating that PFMT plus feedback, PFMT plus biofeedback, electrical stimulation and bladder training were more beneficial than control for curing or improving UI. Women using electrical stimulation plus PFMT had higher quality of life than women in the control group. One conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: for cure or improvement, there was moderate certainty evidence that electrical stimulation was more effective than laseropuncture. There was high or moderate certainty evidence that PFMT resulted in higher quality of life than electrical stimulation and electrical stimulation plus PFMT resulted in better cure or improvement and higher quality of life than PFMT alone. All types of urinary incontinence (13 reviews) Conservative intervention versus control: there was moderate to high certainty evidence of better cure or improvement with PFMT, electrical stimulation, weight loss and cones compared to control. There was moderate certainty evidence of improved quality of life with PFMT compared to control. One conservative intervention versus another conservative intervention: there was moderate or high certainty evidence of better cure or improvement for PFMT with bladder training than bladder training alone. Likewise, PFMT with more individual health professional supervision was more effective than less contact/supervision and more-intensive PFMT was more beneficial than less-intensive PFMT. There was moderate certainty evidence that PFMT plus bladder training resulted in higher quality of life than bladder training alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high certainty that PFMT is more beneficial than control for all types of UI for outcomes of cure or improvement and quality of life. We are moderately certain that, if PFMT is more intense, more frequent, with individual supervision, with/without combined with behavioural interventions with/without an adherence strategy, effectiveness is improved. We are highly certain that, for cure or improvement, cones are more beneficial than control (but not PFMT) for women with SUI, electrical stimulation is beneficial for women with UUI, and weight loss results in more cure and improvement than control for women with AUI. Most evidence within the included Cochrane Reviews is of low certainty. It is important that future new and updated Cochrane Reviews develop questions that are more clinically useful, avoid multiple overlapping reviews and consult women with UI to further identify outcomes of importance.

Perceptual Disorders After Stroke: A Scoping Review of Interventions

Perceptual disorders relating to hearing, smell, somatosensation, taste, touch, and vision commonly impair stroke survivors’ ability to interpret sensory information, impacting on their ability to interact with the world. We aimed to identify and summarize the existing evidence for perceptual disorder interventions poststroke and identify evidence gaps. We searched 13 electronic databases including MEDLINE and Embase and Grey literature and performed citation tracking. Two authors independently applied a priori–defined selection criteria; studies involving stroke survivors with perceptual impairments and interventions addressing those impairments were included. We extracted data on study design, population, perceptual disorders, interventions, and outcomes. Data were tabulated and synthesized narratively. Stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians were involved in agreeing definitions and organizing and interpreting data. From 91 869 records, 80 studies were identified (888 adults and 5 children); participant numbers were small (median, 3.5; range, 1–80), with a broad range of stroke types and time points. Primarily focused on vision (34/80, 42.5%) and somatosensation (28/80; 35.0%), included studies were often case reports (36/80; 45.0%) or randomized controlled trials (22/80; 27.5%). Rehabilitation approaches (78/93; 83.9%), primarily aimed to restore function, and were delivered by clinicians (30/78; 38.5%) or technology (28/78; 35.9%; including robotic interventions for somatosensory disorders). Pharmacological (6/93; 6.5%) and noninvasive brain stimulation (7/93; 7.5%) approaches were also evident. Intervention delivery was poorly reported, but most were delivered in hospital settings (56/93; 60.2%). Study outcomes failed to assess the transfer of training to daily life. Interventions for stroke-related perceptual disorders are underresearched, particularly for pediatric populations. Evidence gaps include interventions for disorders of hearing, taste, touch, and smell perception. Future studies must involve key stakeholders and report this fully. Optimization of intervention design, evaluation, and reporting is required, to support the development of effective, acceptable, and implementable interventions.

Goal adjustment by people living with long-term conditions: A scoping review of literature published from January 2007 to June 2018

Long-term health conditions can limit achievement of personal goals. We aimed to map and synthesize definitions of goal adjustment, theoretical underpinnings, associations with recovery and supportive interventions for adults with long-term conditions. We searched multiple databases (January 2007-June 2018) and identified peer-reviewed research relating to goal adjustment. Data were charted, mapped and synthesized using content analysis and descriptive summaries. Two stakeholder consultations informed the review. Ninety-one articles were included. A range of long-term conditions were represented including cancer (22%), stroke (12%) and mixed neurological conditions (8%). Goal adjustment was one available option when faced with unattainable goals; other options were goal disengagement and goal re-engagement. Most studies were quantitative (58%), reporting mainly positive associations between goal adjustment, disengagement, reengagement and recovery. The Dual Process Model, Goal Adjustment Model and Self-Regulation Theory were most cited underpinning models/theory. Five interventions were identified; only one (self-system therapy) was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Our review provides original and significant insights into goal adjustment definitions, theoretical underpinnings and association with recovery. Effective interventions to support goal adjustment, disengagement and reengagement are lacking. This research-practice gap warrants attention to ensure people with long-term conditions are optimally supported when facing unattainable goals.

Practitioner Engagement by Academic Researchers: A Scoping Review of Nursing, Midwifery, and Therapy Professions Literature

BACKGROUND

Engagement of frontline practitioners by academic researchers in the research process is believed to afford benefits toward closing the research practice gap. However, little is known about if and how academic researchers engage nurses, midwives, or therapists in research activities or if evidence supports these claims of positive impact.

METHOD

A scoping review was undertaken using the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) framework to identify the extent to which this phenomenon has been considered in the literature.

RESULTS

An iterative search carried out in CINAHL, Pubmed, Medline, and Embase retrieved 32 relevant papers published 2000 to 2017, with the majority from the last 2-years. Retained papers described or evaluated active engagement of a practitioner from nursing, midwifery, and therapy disciplines in at least one stage of a research project other than as a study participant. Engagement most often took place in one research activity with few examples of engagement throughout the research process. Limited use of theory and variations in terms used to describe practitioner engagement by researchers was observed. Subjective perspectives of practitioners' experiences and a focus on challenges and benefits were the most prominently reported outcomes. Few attempts were found to establish effects which could support claims that practitioner engagement can enhance the use of findings or impact health outcomes.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that a culture of practitioner engagement is cultivated by developing guiding theory, establishing consistent terminology, and building an evidence base through empirical evaluations which provide objective data to support claims that this activity can positively influence the research practice gap.

Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is an area of growing interest. Several studies have examined the use and impact of PPI in knowledge syntheses (systematic, scoping, and related reviews); however, few studies have focused specifically on the patient or public coauthorship of such reviews.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to identify published systematic and scoping reviews coauthored by patient or public partners and examine the characteristics of these coauthored reviews, such as which journals publish them, geographic location of research teams, and terms used to describe patient or public partner authors in affiliations, abstracts, or article text.

METHODS

We searched CAB Direct, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and PsycInfo from 2011 to May 2019, with a supplementary search of several PPI-focused databases. We refined the Ovid MEDLINE search by examining frequently used words and phrases in relevant search results and searched Ovid MEDLINE using the modified search strategy in June 2020.

RESULTS

We screened 13,998 results and found 37 studies that met our inclusion criteria. In line with other PPI research, we found that a wide range of terms were used for patient and public authors in author affiliations. In some cases, partners were easy to identify with titles such as patient, caregiver or consumer representative, patient partner, expert by experience, citizen researcher, or public contributor. In 11% (n=4) of studies, they were identified as members of a panel or advisory council. In 27% (n=10) of articles, it was either impossible or difficult to tell whether an author was a partner solely from the affiliation, and confirmation was found elsewhere in the article. We also investigated where in the reviews the partner coauthors' roles were described, and when possible, what their specific roles were. Often, there was little or no information about which review tasks the partner coauthors contributed to. Furthermore, only 14% (5/37) of reviews mentioned patient or public involvement as authors in the abstract; involvement was often only indicated in the author affiliation field or in the review text (most often in the methods or contributions section).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings add to the evidence that searching for coproduced research is difficult because of the diversity of terms used to describe patient and public partners, and the lack of consistent, detailed reporting about PPI. For better discoverability, we recommend ensuring that patient and public authorships are indicated in commonly searched database fields. When patient and public-authored research is easier to find, its impact will be easier to measure.

Evidence for implementation of interventions to promote mental health in the workplace: a systematic scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Mental health problems are common in the working population and represent a growing concern internationally, with potential impacts on workers, organisations, workplace health and compensation authorities, labour markets and social policies. Workplace interventions that create workplaces supportive of mental health, promote mental health awareness, destigmatise mental illness and support those with mental disorders are likely to improve health and economical outcomes for employees and organisations. Identifying factors associated with successful implementation of these interventions can improve intervention quality and evaluation, and facilitate the uptake and expansion. Therefore, we aim to review research reporting on the implementation of mental health promotion interventions delivered in workplace settings, in order to increase understanding of factors influencing successful delivery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping review will be conducted incorporating a stepwise methodology to identify relevant literature reviews, primary research and grey literature. This review is registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry897). One reviewer will conduct the search to identify English language studies in the following electronic databases from 2008 through to July 1, 2020: Scopus, PROSPERO, Health Technology Assessments, PubMed, Campbell Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL and Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH). Reference searching, Google Scholar, Grey Matters, IOSH and expert contacts will be used to identify grey literature. Two reviewers will screen title and abstracts, aiming for 95% agreement, and then independently screen full texts for inclusion. Two reviewers will assess methodological quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and extract and synthesize data in line with the RE-AIM framework, Nielson and Randall's model of organisational-level interventions and Moore's sustainability criteria, if the data allows. We will recruit and consult with international experts in the field to ensure engagement, reach and relevance of the main findings.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first systematic scoping review to identify and synthesise evidence of barriers and facilitators to implementing mental health promotion interventions in workplace settings. Our results will inform future evaluation studies and randomised controlled trials and highlight gaps in the evidence base.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Research Registry ( reviewregistry897 ).

Qualitative Exploration of Engaging Patients as Advisors in a Program of Evidence Synthesis: Cobuilding the Science to Enhance Impact

There is an increasing expectation for research to involve patient stakeholders. Yet little guidance exists regarding patient-engaged research in evidence synthesis. Embedded in a learning health care system, the Veteran Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) provides an ideal environment for exploring patient-engaged research in a program of evidence synthesis.

The TRANSFER Approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are a key input to health and social welfare decisions. Studies included in systematic reviews often vary with respect to contextual factors that may impact on how transferable review findings are to the review context. However, many review authors do not consider the transferability of review findings until the end of the review process, for example when assessing confidence in the evidence using GRADE or GRADE-CERQual. This paper describes the TRANSFER Approach, a novel approach for supporting collaboration between review authors and stakeholders from the beginning of the review process to systematically and transparently consider factors that may influence the transferability of systematic review findings.

METHODS

We developed the TRANSFER Approach in three stages: (1) discussions with stakeholders to identify current practices and needs regarding the use of methods to consider transferability, (2) systematic search for and mapping of 25 existing checklists related to transferability, and (3) using the results of stage two to develop a structured conversation format which was applied in three systematic review processes.

RESULTS

None of the identified existing checklists related to transferability provided detailed guidance for review authors on how to assess transferability in systematic reviews, in collaboration with decision makers. The content analysis uncovered seven categories of factors to consider when discussing transferability. We used these to develop a structured conversation guide for discussing potential transferability factors with stakeholders at the beginning of the review process. In response to feedback and trial and error, the TRANSFER Approach has developed, expanding beyond the initial conversation guide, and is now made up of seven stages which are described in this article.

CONCLUSIONS

The TRANSFER Approach supports review authors in collaborating with decision makers to ensure an informed consideration, from the beginning of the review process, of the transferability of the review findings to the review context. Further testing of TRANSFER is needed.

Optimizing the real-world impact of rehabilitation reviews: increasing the relevance and usability of systematic reviews in rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Despite a growing portfolio of rehabilitation reviews, uptake of review findings into practice remains slow, with review findings perceived to be lacking in relevance and usability for stakeholders. Key aspects of review design, production and dissemination have been identified to contribute to this knowledge translation (KT) gap.

AIM

The aim of this study is to identify strategies relevant to rehabilitation review design, production and dissemination which have the potential to optimize uptake of review findings into practice.

RESULTS

Two strategies are discussed, drawing on case examples of existing rehabilitation reviews, including: 1) involving stakeholders in review design, production and dissemination; and 2) moving towards theory-based, mixed methods review design. The merits of these strategies are discussed with reference to the unique and specific characteristics of the rehabilitation context, where there is complexity inherent in the multiple interacting components across population, intervention, context and implementation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Moving towards theory-based, mixed methods reviews which involve stakeholders may be a critical first step in supporting uptake of review findings into rehabilitation practice. Doing so also has the potential to support advances in knowledge and practice in rehabilitation through theory development, as well as creating the context for evidence-based practice.

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.

METHODS

We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review.

RESULTS

We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

How to do a systematic review

High quality up-to-date systematic reviews are essential in order to help healthcare practitioners and researchers keep up-to-date with a large and rapidly growing body of evidence. Systematic reviews answer pre-defined research questions using explicit, reproducible methods to identify, critically appraise and combine results of primary research studies. Key stages in the production of systematic reviews include clarification of aims and methods in a protocol, finding relevant research, collecting data, assessing study quality, synthesizing evidence, and interpreting findings. Systematic reviews may address different types of questions, such as questions about effectiveness of interventions, diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, prevalence or incidence of disease, accuracy of measurement instruments, or qualitative data. For all reviews, it is important to define criteria such as the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes, and to identify potential risks of bias. Reviews of the effect of rehabilitation interventions or reviews of data from observational studies, diagnostic test accuracy, or qualitative data may be more methodologically challenging than reviews of effectiveness of drugs for the prevention or treatment of stroke. Challenges in reviews of stroke rehabilitation can include poor definition of complex interventions, use of outcome measures that have not been validated, and poor generalizability of results. There may also be challenges with bias because the effects are dependent on the persons delivering the intervention, and because masking of participants and investigators may not be possible. There are a wide range of resources which can support the planning and completion of systematic reviews, and these should be considered when planning a systematic review relating to stroke.

User involvement in adolescents' mental healthcare: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

User involvement has become a growing importance in healthcare. The United Nations state that adolescents have a right to be heard, and user involvement in healthcare is a legal right in many countries. Some research provides an insight into the field of user involvement in somatic and mental healthcare for adults, but little is known about user involvement in adolescents' mental healthcare, and no overview of the existing research evidence exists.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of existing research reporting on experiences with and the effectiveness and safety issues associated with user involvement for adolescents' mental healthcare at the individual and organisational level. A systematic literature search and assessment of published research in the field of user involvement in adolescents' mental healthcare will be carried out. Established guidelines will be used for data extraction (Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)), critical appraisal (Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary) and reporting of results (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and CASP). Confidence in the research evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Adolescents are included as coresearchers for the planning and carrying out of this systematic review. This systematic review will provide an overview of the existing research literature and thereby fill a knowledge gap. It may provide various stakeholders, including decision-makers, professionals, individuals and their families, with an overview of existing knowledge in an underexplored field of research.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review as we are not collecting primary data. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and at conference presentations and will be shared with stakeholder groups.

A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Cochrane is the largest international producer of systematic reviews of clinical trial evidence. We looked for published evidence that reports where consumers (patients and the public) have been involved in Cochrane systematic reviews, and also in reviews published by other organisations.We found 36 studies that reported about consumer involvement either in individual systematic reviews, or in other organisations. The studies showed that consumers were involved in reviews in a range of different ways: coordinating and producing reviews, making reviews more accessible, and spreading the results of reviews ("knowledge transfer"). The most common role was commenting on reviews ("peer reviewing"). Consumers also had other general roles, for example in educating people about evidence or helping other consumers. There were some interesting examples of new ways of involving consumers. The studies showed that most consumers came from rich and English speaking countries. There was little evidence about how consumer involvement had changed the reviews ("impact"). The studies found that consumer involvement needed to be properly supported.In future we believe that more research should be done to understand what kind of consumer involvement has the best impact; that more review authors should report how consumers have been involved; and that consumers who help with reviews should come from more varied backgrounds.

ABSTRACT

Background Cochrane is the largest international producer of systematic reviews, and is committed to consumer involvement in the production and dissemination of its reviews. The review aims to systematically scope the evidence base for consumer involvement in organisations which commission, undertake or support systematic reviews; with an emphasis on Cochrane. Methods In June 2015 we searched six databases and other sources for studies of consumer involvement in organisations which commission, undertake or support systematic reviews, or in individual systematic review processes. All types of reports and evaluations were eligible. Included studies were combined in a narrative synthesis structured by the level of evaluation and the type of involvement. Results We identified 36 relevant studies. Eleven of these were evaluations at the level of a whole organisation; seven of these studied consumer involvement in Cochrane. Ten studies examined individual Cochrane review groups. Twelve studies reported on individual reviews; only two of these were Cochrane reviews. Finally, three studies were themselves syntheses of other studies. The included studies reported varying levels of consumer involvement across a wide range of activities related to review design and conduct. These included activities such as priority setting and outcome definition as well as review-specific roles such as acting as peer referees and producing plain language summaries. The level of satisfaction and awareness of impact was generally higher in studies focused on individual Cochrane review groups than in the organisation-wide studies. Conclusions There was evidence of highly variable levels and types of consumer involvement within and beyond Cochrane, but limited evidence for what makes the most effective methods and levels of involving consumers in review production. Where evidence of impact was found at the level of individual reviews and review groups it underlined the need for properly resourced and supported processes in order to derive the greatest benefit from the lived experiences of consumers who are willing to be involved. Where reviews do involve consumers, their contribution to the final result could be more clearly identified. More rigorous evaluations are needed to determine the best approach to achieving this. Trial registration Not applicable.