PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis.


Journal

Campbell systematic reviews
ISSN: 1891-1803
Titre abrégé: Campbell Syst Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918227275506676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Historique:
entrez: 13 3 2023
pubmed: 14 3 2023
medline: 14 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence-based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health- and healthcare-related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer-reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline-producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter. We will include empirical qualitative and mixed-method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer-review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN-McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development. All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two-part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form. The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence-based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health- and healthcare-related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series.
Objectives UNASSIGNED
The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?
Search Methods UNASSIGNED
A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer-reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline-producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter.
Selection Criteria UNASSIGNED
We will include empirical qualitative and mixed-method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer-review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN-McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development.
Data Collection and Analysis UNASSIGNED
All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two-part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form.
Main Results UNASSIGNED
The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36911345
doi: 10.1002/cl2.1237
pii: CL21237
pmc: PMC9038083
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e1237

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors. Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.

Références

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 13;13:37
pubmed: 23497061
Res Synth Methods. 2017 Sep;8(3):303-311
pubmed: 28429447
BMJ. 2004 Oct 30;329(7473):990-1
pubmed: 15514320
Health Res Policy Syst. 2006 Nov 29;4:15
pubmed: 17134482
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jan;67(1):56-64
pubmed: 24189091
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Jan;35(1):307-314
pubmed: 31713031
BMJ. 2017 Aug 2;358:j3453
pubmed: 28768629
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):262-8
pubmed: 23256169
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):269-73
pubmed: 23256170
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Oct;90:68-75
pubmed: 28499847
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Aug;27(8):985-91
pubmed: 22528615
Bull World Health Organ. 2006 Aug;84(8):643-51
pubmed: 16917652
CMAJ. 2014 Feb 18;186(3):E123-42
pubmed: 24344144
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Aug 26;11:124
pubmed: 21871083
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):229-33
pubmed: 23256164
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Mar 9;17(1):186
pubmed: 28279216
Health Res Policy Syst. 2006 Dec 05;4:22
pubmed: 17147811
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
J Comp Eff Res. 2015 Mar;4(2):133-45
pubmed: 25825842
Health Res Policy Syst. 2006 Dec 01;4:17
pubmed: 17140442
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Mar;34(3):458-463
pubmed: 30565151
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jan 25;4(Suppl 1):e000882
pubmed: 30775015
Patient. 2018 Apr;11(2):155-166
pubmed: 29030831
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40-6
pubmed: 27005575
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019 Oct;24(4):245-255
pubmed: 30997859
Health Res Policy Syst. 2006 Nov 20;4:12
pubmed: 17116254
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):2
pubmed: 29384079
Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 24;7(1):208
pubmed: 30474560
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Nov;24(11):700-8
pubmed: 26306609
Qual Health Care. 1999 Sep;8(3):177-83
pubmed: 10847875
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Syst Rev. 2020 Feb 1;9(1):21
pubmed: 32007104
J Comp Eff Res. 2017 Jun;6(4):375-389
pubmed: 28621551
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Jul;111:49-59.e1
pubmed: 30905698
BMC Med. 2011 Apr 14;9:39
pubmed: 21492447
Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):3-10
pubmed: 27115476
Health Expect. 2008 Mar;11(1):72-84
pubmed: 18275404
Implement Sci. 2013 Sep 04;8:101
pubmed: 24006933
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;88:102-112
pubmed: 28579379
Med Decis Making. 2011 Nov-Dec;31(6):E45-74
pubmed: 21959267
Implement Sci. 2012 Jul 23;7:67
pubmed: 22824094

Auteurs

Olivia Magwood (O)

C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre Bruyere Research Institute Ottawa Canada.

Alison Riddle (A)

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Canada.

Jennifer Petkovic (J)

Bruyère Research Institute University of Ottawa Ottawa Canada.

Lyubov Lytvyn (L)

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics McMaster University Hamilton Canada.

Joanne Khabsa (J)

Clinical Research Institute American University of Beirut Medical Center Beirut Lebanon.

Pearl Atwere (P)

Bruyère Research Institute University of Ottawa Ottawa Canada.

Elie A Akl (EA)

Department of Internal Medicine American University of Beirut Medical Center Beirut Lebanon.

Pauline Campbell (P)

Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit Glasgow Caledonian University Glasgow UK.

Vivian Welch (V)

Methods Centre Bruyère Research Institute Ottawa Canada.

Maureen Smith (M)

Cochrane Consumer Network Executive Cochrane Ottawa Canada.

Reem A Mustafa (RA)

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics McMaster University Hamilton Canada.

Heather Limburg (H)

Global Health and Guidelines Division Public Health Agency of Canada Ottawa Canada.

Leonila F Dans (LF)

Department of Clinical Epidemiology University of the Philippines College of Medicine Manilla Philippines.

Nicole Skoetz (N)

Cochrane Cancer, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne University of Cologne Cologne Germany.

Sean Grant (S)

Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health Indiana University Indianapolis Indiana USA.

Tom Concannon (T)

The RAND Corporation Boston Massachusetts USA.

Peter Tugwell (P)

Clinical Epidemiology Program Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ottawa Canada.

Classifications MeSH