A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health.
Delphi technique
priority setting
public health
stakeholder involvement
systematic review
Journal
International journal of public health
ISSN: 1661-8564
Titre abrégé: Int J Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101304551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
18
09
2023
accepted:
06
08
2024
medline:
5
9
2024
pubmed:
5
9
2024
entrez:
5
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to develop and apply a structured approach for prioritising topics for systematic reviews in public health, framed according to the readily applicable PICO format, which encourages the involvement of stakeholders' preferences in a transparent matter. We developed a multi-stage process, consisting of a scoping and two Delphi stages with web-based surveys and invited public health stakeholders in Switzerland to participate: First, respondents specified topics for different public health domains, which were reformulated in a PICO format by content analysis. Second, respondents rated the topics using five stakeholder-refined assessment criteria. Overall rankings were calculated to assess differences between stakeholder groups and rating criteria. In total, 215 respondents suggested 728 topics altogether. The response rate in the two Delphi stages was 91.6% and 77.6%, respectively. Most top-rated review topics focused on the effectiveness of interventions providing education to different target groups, followed by interventions to increase access to specific healthcare services. Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39234445
doi: 10.3389/ijph.2024.1606642
pii: 1606642
pmc: PMC11371559
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1606642Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Hoekstra, Mütsch, Borchard, Kien, Griebler, Von Elm, Rehfuess, Gerhardus and Lhachimi.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.