How to prioritise review topics with stakeholders: A method for prioritising systematic review topics in health, education and social welfare

ID: 

18280

Session: 

Long oral session 4: Priority setting for research

Date: 

Wednesday 13 September 2017 - 14:00 to 15:30

Location: 

Meeting Room 1.43

All authors in correct order:

Hoekstra D1, Mütsch M2, Kien C3, Gerhardus A4, Rehfuess EA5, Lhachimi SK1
1 Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology, Bremen (BIPS) & Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Germany
2 Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Switzerland
3 Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Danube University Krems, Austria
4 Department for Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University Bremen, Germany
5 Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology & Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Dyon Hoekstra

Contact person:

Dyon Hoekstra
Abstract text
Background: Although the need to produce relevant and top priority evidence for health is widely supported, a gold standard for conducting a priority setting exercise in health research, dissemination and implementation does not exist. We developed and tested a method that supports the priority setting of systematic review topics in health.

Objectives: Our priority setting framework aims (1) to be usable in a variety of priority setting exercises regarding health, education and social welfare topics and it aims (2) to enable stakeholders to contribute to the creation of review topics. We have undertaken a pilot in Switzerland and are currently rolling it out in Austria and Germany.

Methods: Our multi-stage framework features the use of online questionnaires as part of a modified Delphi technique that allows for an easy incorporation of both metrics- and consensus-based techniques. This reduces resource expenses and potential disadvantages of a face-to-face expert panel such as social pressure and dominance of certain individuals or groups. Secondly, the questionnaires are programmed in a free, open-source software tool that allows for easy replication by different review groups in different contexts. Thirdly, we use a recruitment strategy in which organisations are invited to nominate respondents from within their own organisation. This increases the likelihood that the invited individuals will participate and allows for selection of individuals who are considered most suitable for contributing to the priority setting exercise. Fourthly, as many stakeholders are not familiar enough with PICO questions, we step-wise guide the stakeholders to indirectly create potential review topics in a PICO format.

Discussion: Drawing on our experience from the pilot, our multi-stage process is very suitable for a quick and thorough prioritisation of systematic review topics with relevant stakeholders. It is user-friendly for both the research team and the participants. We would like to use the opportunity to share the results of this pilot project in order to discuss ways forward to a generalised framework for prioritising systematic review topics.