Article type
Abstract
Background:
Systematic reviews inform evidence-based practice by compiling pertinent research evidence. Stakeholder involvement enhances both the actual and perceived utility of synthesized research evidence, addressing integration barriers and ultimately ensuring a more effective translation of evidence into practice. However, active involvement still lacks synthesized evidence, and inclusive engagement with multiethnolinguistic groups is crucial for understanding diverse health needs. Focusing on specific groups may overlook varied experiences and challenges.
Objective:
This paper aims to introduce the Multi-Ethno-Linguistic Toolkit (MELT project), derived from experiences in research priority setting (RPS), questionnaire translation, and participatory research with multiethnolinguistic groups. Our intention is to apply this toolkit for stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews.
Methodology:
The MELT toolkit was developed from diverse research experiences in three projects among ethnic groups in Malaysia. The first focused on equity-based oral health research priority setting, involving participants from Malay, Chinese, Baba Nyonya, and Melaka Chetti groups. The second initiative employed participatory research to explore uncertainties in oral health decision-making among Malay, Chinese, and Indian ethnic groups. The third was to translate the Intolerance of Uncertainty Questionnaire into Bahasa Malaysia, engaging translators and experts of different ethnicities.
We piloted the toolkit for engaging stakeholders in a systematic review process and conducted focus group discussions on its application in systematic review stakeholder engagements.
Results:
Discussions focused on the toolkit's effectiveness in identifying pertinent stakeholders across diverse ethnicities and languages in systematic reviews. We emphasized the importance of incorporating the voices of minority ethnic groups in determining outcomes and shaping the methodology of the systematic review. Aspects specifically relevant to systematic reviews that were initially lacking were incorporated into the toolkit, resulting in a new iteration.
Conclusion:
The proposed toolkit (MELT) serves as initial guidance for researchers working with multi-ethno-linguistic populations. Acknowledging issues related to ethnicity, values, and beliefs, the toolkit aims to mitigate inequalities by addressing diversity and inclusivity concerns in systematic reviews.
Relevance to patients:
Involving diverse range of individuals in studies ensures more comprehensive health information, contributing to equitable healthcare practices. Inclusive research practices enhance healthcare equity and improve the generalizability of study findings for the broader population.
Systematic reviews inform evidence-based practice by compiling pertinent research evidence. Stakeholder involvement enhances both the actual and perceived utility of synthesized research evidence, addressing integration barriers and ultimately ensuring a more effective translation of evidence into practice. However, active involvement still lacks synthesized evidence, and inclusive engagement with multiethnolinguistic groups is crucial for understanding diverse health needs. Focusing on specific groups may overlook varied experiences and challenges.
Objective:
This paper aims to introduce the Multi-Ethno-Linguistic Toolkit (MELT project), derived from experiences in research priority setting (RPS), questionnaire translation, and participatory research with multiethnolinguistic groups. Our intention is to apply this toolkit for stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews.
Methodology:
The MELT toolkit was developed from diverse research experiences in three projects among ethnic groups in Malaysia. The first focused on equity-based oral health research priority setting, involving participants from Malay, Chinese, Baba Nyonya, and Melaka Chetti groups. The second initiative employed participatory research to explore uncertainties in oral health decision-making among Malay, Chinese, and Indian ethnic groups. The third was to translate the Intolerance of Uncertainty Questionnaire into Bahasa Malaysia, engaging translators and experts of different ethnicities.
We piloted the toolkit for engaging stakeholders in a systematic review process and conducted focus group discussions on its application in systematic review stakeholder engagements.
Results:
Discussions focused on the toolkit's effectiveness in identifying pertinent stakeholders across diverse ethnicities and languages in systematic reviews. We emphasized the importance of incorporating the voices of minority ethnic groups in determining outcomes and shaping the methodology of the systematic review. Aspects specifically relevant to systematic reviews that were initially lacking were incorporated into the toolkit, resulting in a new iteration.
Conclusion:
The proposed toolkit (MELT) serves as initial guidance for researchers working with multi-ethno-linguistic populations. Acknowledging issues related to ethnicity, values, and beliefs, the toolkit aims to mitigate inequalities by addressing diversity and inclusivity concerns in systematic reviews.
Relevance to patients:
Involving diverse range of individuals in studies ensures more comprehensive health information, contributing to equitable healthcare practices. Inclusive research practices enhance healthcare equity and improve the generalizability of study findings for the broader population.