Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Reviews can be made more relevant for policy and practice by the involvement of potential review users in key decisions, such as which interventions, populations and outcomes should delineate the reviews scope (e.g.1). There has been particular interest in participation by consumers alongside practitioners, policy makers and researchers. Advisory groups are one way of encouraging multi-disciplinary involvement.
Objectives: We examined the ways in which a systematic review advisory group comprising different types of review users: 1) influenced the reviews scope and conceptual framework; and 2) worked with respect to key objectives outlined in the groups terms of reference.
Methods: An advisory group was convened of people from research/academic, policy, and service organisations and representatives from charities and organisations that have emerged from and speak on behalf of people living with, or affected by, HIV/AIDS. The group met three times over the course of the review. At the first meeting the group was presented with background information about the proposed review; its scope, conceptual basis, aims, research questions, stages, and methods. Advice was sought on the inclusion criteria for a descriptive map, dissemination strategies and timescales for the work. The second meeting presented the results of the descriptive map. Explicit consensus development methods were employed to facilitate discussion. Discussion focused on the inclusion criteria for the in-depth review (interventions, outcomes, sub-groups of MSM). Two rounds of voting identified and prioritised outcomes for analysis. Open discussion identified sub-groups of MSM and intervention types that were of interest. The third meeting presented preliminary findings from the in-depth review. Discussion focused on the relevance of the syntheses, timescales and mechanisms for the dissemination of the review findings. Members of the group and review team were asked to reflect on the advisory groups work and how they considered the group had influenced the review.
Results: Formal prioritisation identified a single outcome as being the main priority for review users. Several key modifications were also made to the review's scope as a result of the group's work. For example, while the review team had initially conceptualised the review around ideas about HIV risks (an epidemiological concept), Advisory Group discussion identified the central importance to provider agencies of the concept of control over HIV (a personally relevant concept). The Group also emphasised the need for evidence relating to vulnerable groups of MSM and provided a rationale for introducing a cut off date for publication that related to increased availability of HIV treatments.
Conclusions: Explicit use of consensus development methods (e.g. recruiting diverse members, providing materials to inform discussion, eliciting all outcomes before prioritising) enabled the scoping of a systematic review to match the priorities of potential users, and led to specific recommendations for the development, evaluation and implementation of interventions.
References 1. (2004) CCNet, the web-site of the Cochrane Collaborations Consumer Network. http://www.cochrane.no/consumers/default.aspx.
Objectives: We examined the ways in which a systematic review advisory group comprising different types of review users: 1) influenced the reviews scope and conceptual framework; and 2) worked with respect to key objectives outlined in the groups terms of reference.
Methods: An advisory group was convened of people from research/academic, policy, and service organisations and representatives from charities and organisations that have emerged from and speak on behalf of people living with, or affected by, HIV/AIDS. The group met three times over the course of the review. At the first meeting the group was presented with background information about the proposed review; its scope, conceptual basis, aims, research questions, stages, and methods. Advice was sought on the inclusion criteria for a descriptive map, dissemination strategies and timescales for the work. The second meeting presented the results of the descriptive map. Explicit consensus development methods were employed to facilitate discussion. Discussion focused on the inclusion criteria for the in-depth review (interventions, outcomes, sub-groups of MSM). Two rounds of voting identified and prioritised outcomes for analysis. Open discussion identified sub-groups of MSM and intervention types that were of interest. The third meeting presented preliminary findings from the in-depth review. Discussion focused on the relevance of the syntheses, timescales and mechanisms for the dissemination of the review findings. Members of the group and review team were asked to reflect on the advisory groups work and how they considered the group had influenced the review.
Results: Formal prioritisation identified a single outcome as being the main priority for review users. Several key modifications were also made to the review's scope as a result of the group's work. For example, while the review team had initially conceptualised the review around ideas about HIV risks (an epidemiological concept), Advisory Group discussion identified the central importance to provider agencies of the concept of control over HIV (a personally relevant concept). The Group also emphasised the need for evidence relating to vulnerable groups of MSM and provided a rationale for introducing a cut off date for publication that related to increased availability of HIV treatments.
Conclusions: Explicit use of consensus development methods (e.g. recruiting diverse members, providing materials to inform discussion, eliciting all outcomes before prioritising) enabled the scoping of a systematic review to match the priorities of potential users, and led to specific recommendations for the development, evaluation and implementation of interventions.
References 1. (2004) CCNet, the web-site of the Cochrane Collaborations Consumer Network. http://www.cochrane.no/consumers/default.aspx.