Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Evidence synthesis is changing. With advances in machine learning, citizen science and publishing, 'living' evidence synthesis is increasingly realistic and desired by health decision-makers. In living evidence synthesis, continual surveillance for new research feeds living systematic reviews that are updated as soon as new research become available. In turn, these enable living guideline recommendations to be immediately updated, dramatically reducing the time from research to practice. At the same time, ways of consumer and other stakeholder engagement in research are evolving. Healthcare consumers are no longer contributors, but co-producers. In co-production, stakeholders and researchers come together in mutually beneficial partnerships to generate new forms of knowledge. It is unclear how co-production will work in a living evidence model that requires ongoing and often sporadic commitment.
Objectives:
To explore goals and opportunities for engagement and co-production in living evidence synthesis.
Methods:
We are planning a scoping review to explore key concepts and areas of intersection in living evidence synthesis and co-production. This will be followed by focus groups with a purposive, international sample of people experienced in evidence synthesis as a consumer representative, systematic reviewer, guideline producer or decision-maker. After introducing the two concepts, the facilitator will lead a structured discussion, with questions such as: What should co-production look like in living evidence synthesis? In what activities and with what goals? How might a living evidence model foster the principles of co-production, such as: forming relationships with clear, shared expectations; enabling peer support; and de-emphasising 'professional' and 'patient' roles to share control and responsibility?
Results:
The rise of living evidence synthesis and the evolution of co-production gives an opportunity to develop methods maximising the potential of both activities. Results of this ongoing work will be reported on.
Conclusions:
The time is right to build on momentum in co-production and living evidence synthesis and work together to develop unique models to meaningfully engage stakeholders in all stages of living evidence.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
We are partnering with consumers in this study.
Evidence synthesis is changing. With advances in machine learning, citizen science and publishing, 'living' evidence synthesis is increasingly realistic and desired by health decision-makers. In living evidence synthesis, continual surveillance for new research feeds living systematic reviews that are updated as soon as new research become available. In turn, these enable living guideline recommendations to be immediately updated, dramatically reducing the time from research to practice. At the same time, ways of consumer and other stakeholder engagement in research are evolving. Healthcare consumers are no longer contributors, but co-producers. In co-production, stakeholders and researchers come together in mutually beneficial partnerships to generate new forms of knowledge. It is unclear how co-production will work in a living evidence model that requires ongoing and often sporadic commitment.
Objectives:
To explore goals and opportunities for engagement and co-production in living evidence synthesis.
Methods:
We are planning a scoping review to explore key concepts and areas of intersection in living evidence synthesis and co-production. This will be followed by focus groups with a purposive, international sample of people experienced in evidence synthesis as a consumer representative, systematic reviewer, guideline producer or decision-maker. After introducing the two concepts, the facilitator will lead a structured discussion, with questions such as: What should co-production look like in living evidence synthesis? In what activities and with what goals? How might a living evidence model foster the principles of co-production, such as: forming relationships with clear, shared expectations; enabling peer support; and de-emphasising 'professional' and 'patient' roles to share control and responsibility?
Results:
The rise of living evidence synthesis and the evolution of co-production gives an opportunity to develop methods maximising the potential of both activities. Results of this ongoing work will be reported on.
Conclusions:
The time is right to build on momentum in co-production and living evidence synthesis and work together to develop unique models to meaningfully engage stakeholders in all stages of living evidence.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
We are partnering with consumers in this study.