Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Priority setting for systematic reviews is just as important as prioritising primary research. It ensures that systematic reviews address highly relevant research questions and thus meet the needs of those affected. Involving stakeholders, such as patient representatives, health care providers and guideline coordinators, in prioritisation processes helps to concentrate limited research resources on answering the important questions and reduce research waste. In the past, reviews developed within the Cochrane Haematology Group have mainly been projects commissioned by the German government, grants from the National Institute for Health Research, or priorities highlighted by national and international bodies, e.g. the World Health Organization. However, up to now a structured prioritisation process was missing.
Objective:
To identify 5 new systematic review questions and 10 existing systematic reviews that need updating in the area of Haematology, considering potential differences between high-income countries and low-and middle-income countries, by implementing a structured prioritisation process.
Approach:
1) We formed a priority setting steering group, involving the Group’s Coordinating-Editor, Managing Editors, Clinical Experts from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, Network Senior Editor, and the Network Support Fellow. 2) To assess the relevance of our existing reviews, we analysed citation metrics, guidelines that cited our reviews, and download metrics of all reviews within our Group’s portfolio. We used our findings to develop a list of potential priority topics and reviewed their up-to-dateness. 3) To identify evidence gaps, we reviewed research roadmaps of regional and global advocacy groups and societies, checked prioritised topics of the James Lind Alliance and consulted our Group’s Editors, patient representatives, and guideline coordinators. 4) Through a stakeholder mapping exercise done by the Network Support Fellow, we identified a broader community of external stakeholders, such as healthcare consumers and providers, and policy makers. We collated both lists in a survey and circulated it to the identified stakeholders. 5) Following the analysis of the survey results, we will announce prioritised topics on our Group’s website and distribute them via Cochrane channels to attract interested authors teams. This process will be repeated on a three yearly basis.
Expected outputs:
The Haematology group will publish at least 2 prioritised review updates and 1 new priority review per year.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Our group is working with external stakeholders, such as patient representatives, healthcare providers and guideline coordinators, to prioritise review topics within their existing portfolio and to identify new topics of high relevance. Involving stakeholders ensures that reviews developed within our group are of utmost importance. Working together will lead to an effective dissemination of the evidence and increase impact and understanding by those who need it.
Priority setting for systematic reviews is just as important as prioritising primary research. It ensures that systematic reviews address highly relevant research questions and thus meet the needs of those affected. Involving stakeholders, such as patient representatives, health care providers and guideline coordinators, in prioritisation processes helps to concentrate limited research resources on answering the important questions and reduce research waste. In the past, reviews developed within the Cochrane Haematology Group have mainly been projects commissioned by the German government, grants from the National Institute for Health Research, or priorities highlighted by national and international bodies, e.g. the World Health Organization. However, up to now a structured prioritisation process was missing.
Objective:
To identify 5 new systematic review questions and 10 existing systematic reviews that need updating in the area of Haematology, considering potential differences between high-income countries and low-and middle-income countries, by implementing a structured prioritisation process.
Approach:
1) We formed a priority setting steering group, involving the Group’s Coordinating-Editor, Managing Editors, Clinical Experts from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, Network Senior Editor, and the Network Support Fellow. 2) To assess the relevance of our existing reviews, we analysed citation metrics, guidelines that cited our reviews, and download metrics of all reviews within our Group’s portfolio. We used our findings to develop a list of potential priority topics and reviewed their up-to-dateness. 3) To identify evidence gaps, we reviewed research roadmaps of regional and global advocacy groups and societies, checked prioritised topics of the James Lind Alliance and consulted our Group’s Editors, patient representatives, and guideline coordinators. 4) Through a stakeholder mapping exercise done by the Network Support Fellow, we identified a broader community of external stakeholders, such as healthcare consumers and providers, and policy makers. We collated both lists in a survey and circulated it to the identified stakeholders. 5) Following the analysis of the survey results, we will announce prioritised topics on our Group’s website and distribute them via Cochrane channels to attract interested authors teams. This process will be repeated on a three yearly basis.
Expected outputs:
The Haematology group will publish at least 2 prioritised review updates and 1 new priority review per year.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Our group is working with external stakeholders, such as patient representatives, healthcare providers and guideline coordinators, to prioritise review topics within their existing portfolio and to identify new topics of high relevance. Involving stakeholders ensures that reviews developed within our group are of utmost importance. Working together will lead to an effective dissemination of the evidence and increase impact and understanding by those who need it.