Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Cochrane did not have a representation of rehabilitation stakeholders until the launch of Cochrane Rehabilitation at the end of 2016. We found that one out of 11 Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSR) are related to Cochrane Rehabilitation (Levack et al, 2019), and that more than 50% of Review Groups produced CSR relevant to rehabilitation professionals. Nevertheless, there are no data about the coverage of rehabilitation-relevant topics and if there are gaps in the current CSR production.
Objectives: to present the results of the prioritisation process
Methods: consensus gathering through Delphi Process via online surveys. We asked 67 national Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) scientific societies, members of the International and European PRM Societies to participate through one medical delegate. We asked each delegate to involve at least one other rehabilitation professional from their country. We started from an external reference framework provided by the Cochrane Rehabilitation ebook project: an inclusive index drafted from treatises and educational curricula in rehabilitation. This has been validated by the delegates. Then we mapped the existing Cochrane evidence to the general index. Finally, we asked delegates to define the priorities for Cochrane Review production among these gaps.
Results: we recruited 100 rehabilitation practitioners of nine different professions from 39 countries. The response rate to all surveys was between 50% and 60%. We have refined the ebook index according to the suggestions received and we have added four chapters to the original nine. We have identified the gaps and defined the list of priorities.
Discussion: the Delphi rounds allowed Cochrane Rehabilitation to upgrade the original version of the index, providing a validated external reference framework to map the existing Cochrane evidence. We will provide the prioritisation of gaps to Networks for the production of future Cochrane Reviews.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: healthcare consumers have not been directly involved.
Objectives: to present the results of the prioritisation process
Methods: consensus gathering through Delphi Process via online surveys. We asked 67 national Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) scientific societies, members of the International and European PRM Societies to participate through one medical delegate. We asked each delegate to involve at least one other rehabilitation professional from their country. We started from an external reference framework provided by the Cochrane Rehabilitation ebook project: an inclusive index drafted from treatises and educational curricula in rehabilitation. This has been validated by the delegates. Then we mapped the existing Cochrane evidence to the general index. Finally, we asked delegates to define the priorities for Cochrane Review production among these gaps.
Results: we recruited 100 rehabilitation practitioners of nine different professions from 39 countries. The response rate to all surveys was between 50% and 60%. We have refined the ebook index according to the suggestions received and we have added four chapters to the original nine. We have identified the gaps and defined the list of priorities.
Discussion: the Delphi rounds allowed Cochrane Rehabilitation to upgrade the original version of the index, providing a validated external reference framework to map the existing Cochrane evidence. We will provide the prioritisation of gaps to Networks for the production of future Cochrane Reviews.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: healthcare consumers have not been directly involved.