Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: 'expertise or experience', 'ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group', 'inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)', 'communication skills', 'commitment and time capacity', 'financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest', 'training support and funding needs'. Additionally, three factors are desirable: 'influence', 'research relevant values', 'previous stakeholder engagement'. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.

Contextual differences considered in the Tunisian ADOLOPMENT of the European guidelines on breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a common disease in Tunisia and is associated with high mortality rates. The "Instance Nationale de l'Evaluation et de l'Accréditation en Santé" (INEAS) and the Tunisian Society of Oncology decided to develop practice guidelines on the subject. While the development of de novo guidelines on breast cancer screening is a demanding process, guideline adaptation appears more appropriate and context sensitive. The objective of this paper is to describe the adaptation process of the European Guidelines on Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis to the Tunisian setting in terms of the methodological process, contextual differences between the source and adoloped guideline, and changes in the recommendations. METHODS: We used the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology to prioritize the topic, select the source guideline, and prioritize the questions and the outcomes. Once the source guideline was selected-the European Breast Cancer Guidelines-the European Commission´s Joint Research Centre shared with the project team in Tunisia all relevant documents and files. In parallel, the project team searched for local studies on the disease prevalence, associated outcomes' baseline risks, patients' values and preferences, cost, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility. Then, the adoloping panel reviewed the GRADE evidence tables and the Evidence to Decision tables and discussed whether their own judgments were consistent with those from the source guideline or not. They based their judgments on the evidence on health effects, the contextual evidence, and their own experiences. RESULTS: The most relevant contextual differences between the source and adoloped guidelines were related to the perspective, scope, prioritized questions, rating of outcome importance, baseline risks, and indirectness of the evidence. The ADOLOPMENT process resulted in keeping 5 out of 6 recommendations unmodified. One recommendation addressing "screening versus no screening with ultrasound in women with high breast density on mammography screening" was modified from 'conditional against' to 'conditional for either' due to more favorable ratings by the adoloping panel in terms of equity and feasibility. CONCLUSION: This process illustrates both the feasibility of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach and the importance of consideration of contextual evidence. It also highlights the value of collaboration with the organization that developed the source guideline.