A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

International Journal of Public Health Pub Date : 2024-08-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/ijph.2024.1606642

Dyon Hoekstra, Margot Mütsch, Annegret Borchard, Christina Kien, Ursula Griebler, Erik Von Elm, Eva Rehfuess, Ansgar Gerhardus, Stefan K Lhachimi

{"title":"A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health.","authors":"Dyon Hoekstra, Margot Mütsch, Annegret Borchard, Christina Kien, Ursula Griebler, Erik Von Elm, Eva Rehfuess, Ansgar Gerhardus, Stefan K Lhachimi","doi":"10.3389/ijph.2024.1606642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: 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.Methods: 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.Results: 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.Conclusion: Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.","PeriodicalId":14322,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11371559/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2024.1606642","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.

查看原文本刊更多论文

让利益相关者参与公共卫生系统性审查主题优先排序的结构化方法。

研究目的本研究旨在开发和应用一种结构化方法，根据易于应用的 PICO 格式确定公共卫生系统综述主题的优先次序，该方法鼓励以透明的方式参与利益相关者的偏好：我们开发了一个多阶段流程，包括一个范围界定阶段和两个德尔菲阶段，并通过网络调查邀请瑞士的公共卫生利益相关者参与：首先，受访者为不同的公共卫生领域指定主题，并通过内容分析以 PICO 格式重新制定主题。其次，受访者使用五个利益相关者定义的评估标准对主题进行评分。通过计算总排名来评估利益相关者群体和评分标准之间的差异：共有 215 位受访者提出了 728 个主题。两个德尔菲阶段的回复率分别为 91.6% 和 77.6%。最受好评的评审主题集中在为不同目标群体提供教育的干预措施的有效性上，其次是增加特定医疗保健服务可及性的干预措施：我们的方法鼓励利益相关者参与确定系统性综述的优先事项，并强调了利益相关者之间以及各个标准之间的差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

2.20%

发文量

269

审稿时长

12 months

期刊介绍： The International Journal of Public Health publishes scientific articles relevant to global public health, from different countries and cultures, and assembles them into issues that raise awareness and understanding of public health problems and solutions. The Journal welcomes submissions of original research, critical and relevant reviews, methodological papers and manuscripts that emphasize theoretical content. IJPH sometimes publishes commentaries and opinions. Special issues highlight key areas of current research. The Editorial Board''s mission is to provide a thoughtful forum for contemporary issues and challenges in global public health research and practice.