Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Alex Pollock, Pauline Campbell, Caroline Struthers, Anneliese Synnot, Jack Nunn, Sophie Hill, Heather Goodare, Jacqui Morris, Chris Watts, Richard Morley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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. 30% involved patients and/or carers. 32% were from USA, 26% from UK and 10% from Canada. 10% (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. 69% (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. 81% (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding =4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 hour - ½ day. 19% (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving 3 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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalSystematic Reviews
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Nov 2018

Fingerprint

Patient Selection
Caregivers
Canada
Public Health
Learning
Databases
Population

Keywords

  • systematic reviews
  • stakeholders
  • scoping review

Cite this

Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Struthers, C., Synnot, A., Nunn, J., Hill, S., ... Morley, R. (2018). Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0
Pollock, Alex ; Campbell, Pauline ; Struthers, Caroline ; Synnot, Anneliese ; Nunn, Jack ; Hill, Sophie ; Goodare, Heather ; Morris, Jacqui ; Watts, Chris ; Morley, Richard. / Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. In: Systematic Reviews. 2018.
@article{b6b55fa10ff241089bffed2d59368c68,
title = "Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review",
abstract = "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. 30{\%} involved patients and/or carers. 32{\%} were from USA, 26{\%} from UK and 10{\%} from Canada. 10{\%} (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. 69{\%} (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22{\%} (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. 81{\%} (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83{\%} of these holding =4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 hour - ½ day. 19{\%} (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving 3 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.",
keywords = "systematic reviews, stakeholders, scoping review",
author = "Alex Pollock and Pauline Campbell and Caroline Struthers and Anneliese Synnot and Jack Nunn and Sophie Hill and Heather Goodare and Jacqui Morris and Chris Watts and Richard Morley",
note = "Acceptance in SAN OA article, author provided proof version, asked author to send us note when published. ET 20/11/18",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0",
language = "English",

}

Pollock, A, Campbell, P, Struthers, C, Synnot, A, Nunn, J, Hill, S, Goodare, H, Morris, J, Watts, C & Morley, R 2018, 'Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review', Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. / Pollock, Alex; Campbell, Pauline; Struthers, Caroline; Synnot, Anneliese; Nunn, Jack; Hill, Sophie; Goodare, Heather; Morris, Jacqui; Watts, Chris; Morley, Richard.

In: Systematic Reviews, 24.11.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

AU - Pollock, Alex

AU - Campbell, Pauline

AU - Struthers, Caroline

AU - Synnot, Anneliese

AU - Nunn, Jack

AU - Hill, Sophie

AU - Goodare, Heather

AU - Morris, Jacqui

AU - Watts, Chris

AU - Morley, Richard

N1 - Acceptance in SAN OA article, author provided proof version, asked author to send us note when published. ET 20/11/18

PY - 2018/11/24

Y1 - 2018/11/24

N2 - 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. 30% involved patients and/or carers. 32% were from USA, 26% from UK and 10% from Canada. 10% (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. 69% (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. 81% (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding =4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 hour - ½ day. 19% (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving 3 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.

AB - 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. 30% involved patients and/or carers. 32% were from USA, 26% from UK and 10% from Canada. 10% (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. 69% (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. 81% (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding =4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 hour - ½ day. 19% (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving 3 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.

KW - systematic reviews

KW - stakeholders

KW - scoping review

U2 - 10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0

DO - 10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0

M3 - Article

ER -