Article type
Abstract
Background: Active involvement of healthcare consumers and other stakeholders, including health professionals and policy makers, in systematic reviews is widely advocated but remains a challenge. There is uncertainty about how to effectively engage stakeholders and examples of good practice are needed.
Objectives: To describe the implementation, experiences and influence of stakeholder engagement in an update of a priority Cochrane Consumers and Communication Cochrane review.
Methods and results: The author team is led by a researcher responsible for the technical aspects of the review and a consumer who leads the stakeholder engagement. Stakeholders include Australians representing the people most likely to use the review (consumers, policy makers, health-service managers, clinicians, researchers, guideline developers, and community educators). The engagement model includes both an advisory group (n = 18), to ensure currency and relevance of the review, and a broader review network (n = 30), to optimise reach and influence of the published review. For the advisory group, contributions are invited at key stages, including finalising the question and scope, interpreting analysis, and finalising review drafts. Review network members are kept informed about review progress and their advice sought on dissemination plans. The participation mode is flexible, with face-to-face single or group meetings, phone or email contributions encouraged. The process evaluation seeks to understand how stakeholders were involved, their perspectives on being involved, and how their involvement influenced the review, the research process and the people involved. Observation and document analysis are being used to capture engagement activities, and a combination of online surveys and semi-structured interviews to collect researcher and stakeholder experiences and perceptions.
Conclusions: Our stakeholder-engagement approach includes novel elements aimed at expanding the options for meaningful stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews.
Objectives: To describe the implementation, experiences and influence of stakeholder engagement in an update of a priority Cochrane Consumers and Communication Cochrane review.
Methods and results: The author team is led by a researcher responsible for the technical aspects of the review and a consumer who leads the stakeholder engagement. Stakeholders include Australians representing the people most likely to use the review (consumers, policy makers, health-service managers, clinicians, researchers, guideline developers, and community educators). The engagement model includes both an advisory group (n = 18), to ensure currency and relevance of the review, and a broader review network (n = 30), to optimise reach and influence of the published review. For the advisory group, contributions are invited at key stages, including finalising the question and scope, interpreting analysis, and finalising review drafts. Review network members are kept informed about review progress and their advice sought on dissemination plans. The participation mode is flexible, with face-to-face single or group meetings, phone or email contributions encouraged. The process evaluation seeks to understand how stakeholders were involved, their perspectives on being involved, and how their involvement influenced the review, the research process and the people involved. Observation and document analysis are being used to capture engagement activities, and a combination of online surveys and semi-structured interviews to collect researcher and stakeholder experiences and perceptions.
Conclusions: Our stakeholder-engagement approach includes novel elements aimed at expanding the options for meaningful stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews.