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。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials 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":"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。","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":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"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\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2024.1606642\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2024.1606642","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信