Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: researcher objectivity in compiling systematic reviews might be undermined if the researchers undertaking the research are homogeneous in ideals, perspectives and experiences. Diversity within systematic review teams could produce more balanced research, bringing insight from various standpoints. The EPPI-Centre (Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre) has built a diverse team of systematic reviewers, who have input into the design and execution of reviews. Reviewers on our team emanate from diverse disciplines (e.g. education, history, medicine, sociology, and economics) and diverse backgrounds: age, ethnicity, gender, nationality, sexual orientation and socioeconomic background.
Objectives: to describe the benefits of trans-disciplinary systematic review teams comprising reviewers from diverse backgrounds.
Methods: reflection on the benefits of diversity in the review team using example reviews.
Results: we found that having a large team of reviewers from diverse disciplines is beneficial in reviews that cover broad and complex areas. In an evidence map on community pharmacy, the breadth of subject areas covered by the review was extensive, including more than 20 specific health conditions. This map benefited from reviewers with subject or condition specific knowledge when writing up the report. We also found that pairing experts with non-experts is beneficial. For example, a review on the cost effectiveness of sexual health interventions benefited from reviewers with training in health economics working alongside reviewers who were new to this area. This combination helped to ensure that findings were written in a format accessible to stakeholders unfamiliar with the terminology. Finally, we found that diversity within the team helps to recognize the importance of diversity in relation to health inequalities. In a review on the prevalence of mental health conditions in adult minority ethnic groups, the review benefited from the insights of a minority ethnic researcher.
Conclusions: those undertaking systematic reviews should consider the nature of diversity that is being introduced (or not) into the research. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in systematic reviews can provide diversity, however creating trans-disciplinary review teams from diverse backgrounds is especially beneficial to: address researcher bias; triangulate perspectives; ensure academic voice in research is representative and inclusive; and produce more balanced research based on the experiential and professional knowledge of reviewers. If review teams lack diversity, then the stakeholder diversity must be considered a priority when conducting PPI.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: though no specific patient or healthcare consumer involvement was sought for the suggestions in this abstract, PPI was conducted for all the example reviews. This included: consultations with policy teams, stakeholders and advisory groups (Brunton et al, 2016; Stokes et al, 2019; Rees et al, 2016).
Objectives: to describe the benefits of trans-disciplinary systematic review teams comprising reviewers from diverse backgrounds.
Methods: reflection on the benefits of diversity in the review team using example reviews.
Results: we found that having a large team of reviewers from diverse disciplines is beneficial in reviews that cover broad and complex areas. In an evidence map on community pharmacy, the breadth of subject areas covered by the review was extensive, including more than 20 specific health conditions. This map benefited from reviewers with subject or condition specific knowledge when writing up the report. We also found that pairing experts with non-experts is beneficial. For example, a review on the cost effectiveness of sexual health interventions benefited from reviewers with training in health economics working alongside reviewers who were new to this area. This combination helped to ensure that findings were written in a format accessible to stakeholders unfamiliar with the terminology. Finally, we found that diversity within the team helps to recognize the importance of diversity in relation to health inequalities. In a review on the prevalence of mental health conditions in adult minority ethnic groups, the review benefited from the insights of a minority ethnic researcher.
Conclusions: those undertaking systematic reviews should consider the nature of diversity that is being introduced (or not) into the research. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in systematic reviews can provide diversity, however creating trans-disciplinary review teams from diverse backgrounds is especially beneficial to: address researcher bias; triangulate perspectives; ensure academic voice in research is representative and inclusive; and produce more balanced research based on the experiential and professional knowledge of reviewers. If review teams lack diversity, then the stakeholder diversity must be considered a priority when conducting PPI.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: though no specific patient or healthcare consumer involvement was sought for the suggestions in this abstract, PPI was conducted for all the example reviews. This included: consultations with policy teams, stakeholders and advisory groups (Brunton et al, 2016; Stokes et al, 2019; Rees et al, 2016).
PDF