Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group's systematic review priority-setting project.

BACKGROUND: Health researchers and funders are increasingly consulting with stakeholders to set their research agendas but these activities are rarely evaluated. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) conducted a priority-setting project for systematic reviews in partnership with stakeholders (consumers/patients, health professionals, policy-makers and others). In this paper, we aim to describe our evaluation of the project's processes and outcomes. METHODS: We used a 10-element conceptual framework designed to evaluate processes (e.g. stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process) and outcomes (e.g. improved decision-making quality, stakeholder acceptance and understanding) of health priority-setting. Data sources included empirical data (feedback surveys, project documents and CCCG editorial policies) and CCCG staff reflections. Data were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: The project met three and partially met two of the process elements, for example, by engaging key stakeholders throughout the project and using pre-determined and transparent methods that offered multiple and meaningful ways to contribute. The project met three and partially met two of the outcome elements. Stakeholders were satisfied with and accepted the process and an additional six Cochrane Review titles aligned with stakeholder priorities are now being conducted in partnership with stakeholders. The project has also directly influenced the editorial work of CCCG, for example, by shifting its organisational focus towards coproduction, and indirectly influenced the work of Cochrane's prioritisation and coproduction activities. Some areas were identified as having room for improvement, for example, there was low participation by people from diverse backgrounds, stakeholders could contribute to most but not all project stages, and there was no formal way for stakeholders to appeal decisions at project end. In the 3 years since its completion, the Cochrane Reviews are nearing completion but none of the reviews have been published. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that our priority-setting methods were broadly in line with best practice and the project resulted in many positive outcomes beyond just identifying the top priorities for research. Our evaluation framework and recommendations for future evaluations may be of use to priority-setting researchers planning similar activities.

Practical Guidance for Involving Stakeholders in Health Research.

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly common in health research, with protocols for engaging multiple stakeholder groups becoming normative in patient-centered outcomes research. Previous work has focused on identifying relevant stakeholder groups with whom to work and on working with stakeholders in evidence implementation. This paper draws on the expertise of a team from four countries-Canada, Australia, the UK, and the USA-to provide researchers with practical guidance for carrying out multi-stakeholder-engaged projects: we present a list of questions to assist in selecting appropriate roles and modes of engagement; we introduce a matrix to help summarize engagement activities; and we provide a list of online resources. This guidance, matrix, and list of resources can assist researchers to consider more systematically which stakeholder groups to involve, in what study roles, and by what modes of engagement. By documenting how stakeholders are paired up with specific roles, the matrix also provides a potential structure for evaluating the impact of stakeholder engagement.

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE).

BACKGROUND: Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. RESULTS: From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. CONCLUSIONS: The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews. RESULTS: Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.

Consumer engagement critical to success in an Australian research project: reflections from those involved.

This paper describes the people, activities and methods of consumer engagement in a complex research project, and reflects on the influence this had on the research and people involved, and enablers and challenges of engagement. The 2.5-year Integrating and Deriving Evidence Experiences and Preferences (IN-DEEP) study was conducted to develop online consumer summaries of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment evidence in partnership with a three-member consumer advisory group. Engagement methods included 6-monthly face-to-face meetings and email contact. Advisory group members were active in planning, conduct and dissemination and translational phases of the research. Engaging consumers in this way improved the quality of the research process and outputs by: being more responsive to, and reflective of, the experiences of Australians with MS; expanding the research reach and depth; and improving the researchers' capacity to manage study challenges. Advisory group members found contributing their expertise to MS research satisfying and empowering, whereas researchers gained confidence in the research direction. Managing the unpredictability of MS was a substantive challenge; the key enabler was the 'brokering role' of the researcher based at an MS organisation. Meaningfully engaging consumers with a range of skills, experiences and networks can make important and unforeseen contributions to research success.

Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review.

Barriers to access and long-term complications remain a challenge in transplantation. Further advancements may be achieved through research priority setting with patient engagement to strengthen its relevance. We evaluated research priority setting in solid organ transplantation and described stakeholder priorities. Databases were searched to October 2016. We synthesized the findings descriptively. The 28 studies (n = 2071 participants) addressed kidney [9 (32%)], heart [7 (25%)], liver [3 (11%)], lung [1 (4%)], pancreas [1 (4%)], and nonspecified organ transplantation [7 (25%)] using consensus conferences, expert panel meetings, workshops, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and the Delphi technique. Nine (32%) reported patient involvement. The 336 research priorities addressed the following: organ donation [43 priorities (14 studies)]; waitlisting and allocation [43 (10 studies)]; histocompatibility and immunology [31 (8 studies)]; immunosuppression [21 (10 studies)]; graft-related complications [38 (13 studies)]; recipient (non-graft-related) complications [86 (14 studies)]; reproduction [14 (1 study)], psychosocial and lifestyle [49 (7 studies)]; and disparities in access and outcomes [10 (4 studies)]. The priorities identified were broad but only one-third of initiatives engaged patients/caregivers, and details of the process were lacking. Setting research priorities in an explicit manner with patient involvement can guide investment toward the shared priorities of patients and health professionals.

Predictors of Major Depression and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Although major depressive disorder (MDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are prevalent after traumatic brain injury (TBI), little is known about which patients are at risk for developing them. The authors systematically reviewed the literature on predictors and multivariable models for MDD and PTSD after TBI. The authors included 26 observational studies. MDD was associated with female gender, preinjury depression, postinjury unemployment, and lower brain volume, whereas PTSD was related to shorter posttraumatic amnesia, memory of the traumatic event, and early posttraumatic symptoms. Risk of bias ratings for most studies were acceptable, although studies that developed a multivariable model suffered from methodological shortcomings.

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through a speculated anti-tumour effect, in addition to the antithrombotic effect, although may increase the risk of bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search included (1) a major electronic search (February 2016) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February 2016; accessed via OVID) and Embase (1980 to February 2016; accessed via OVID); (2) handsearching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and (5) a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we are running searches continually and we will incorporate new evidence rapidly after it is identified. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August, 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Typically, these patients are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized form we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding, minor bleeding, and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook). MAIN RESULTS: Of 6947 identified citations, 18 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 9575 participants. Trial registries' searches identified nine registered but unpublished trials, two of which were labeled as 'ongoing trials'. In all included RCTs, the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 10 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 35 fewer to 15 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and mortality at 24 months (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; RD 8 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 31 fewer to 8 more; moderate certainty of evidence). Heparin therapy reduces the risk of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; RD 30 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 36 fewer to 22 fewer; high certainty of evidence), while it increases in the risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30; 95% 0.94 to 1.79; RD 4 more per 1000; 95% CI 1 fewer to 11 more; moderate certainty of evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.70; 95% 1.13 to 2.55; RD 17 more per 1000; 95% CI 3 more to 37 more; high certainty of evidence). Results failed to confirm or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on thrombocytopenia (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; RD 33 fewer per 1000; 95% CI 66 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty of evidence); quality of life (moderate certainty of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Heparin appears to have no effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It reduces symptomatic VTE and likely increases major and minor bleeding. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.Editorial note:This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence, as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity following traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal muscle spasticity is a major physical complication resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can lead to muscle contracture, joint stiffness, reduced range of movement, broken skin and pain. Treatments for spasticity include a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Management of spasticity following TBI varies from other clinical populations because of the added complexity of behavioural and cognitive issues associated with TBI. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity in people with TBI. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2017, we searched key databases including the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and others, in addition to clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs evaluating any intervention for the management of spasticity in TBI. Only studies where at least 50% of participants had a TBI (or for whom separate data for participants with TBI were available) were included. The primary outcomes were spasticity and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures were classified according to the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health including body functions (sensory, pain, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions) and activities and participation (general tasks and demands; mobility; self-care; domestic life; major life areas; community, social and civic life). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Data were synthesised narratively; meta-analysis was precluded due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies in this review which involved 134 participants with TBI. Only five studies reported between-group differences, yielding outcome data for 105 participants with TBI. These five studies assessed the effects of a range of pharmacological (baclofen, botulinum toxin A) and non-pharmacological (casting, physiotherapy, splints, tilt table standing and electrical stimulation) interventions, often in combination. The studies which tested the effect of baclofen and tizanidine did not report their results adequately. Where outcome data were available, spasticity and adverse events were reported, in addition to some secondary outcome measures.Of the five studies with results, three were funded by governments, charities or health services and two were funded by a pharmaceutical or medical technology company. The four studies without useable results were funded by pharmaceutical or medical technology companies.It was difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions due to poor reporting, small study size and the fact that participants with TBI were usually only a proportion of the overall total. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to the paucity of data and heterogeneity of interventions and comparator groups. Some studies concluded that the intervention they tested had beneficial effects on spasticity, and others found no difference between certain treatments. The most common adverse event was minor skin damage in people who received casting. We believe it would be misleading to provide any further description of study results given the quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The very low quality and limited amount of evidence about the management of spasticity in people with TBI means that we are uncertain about the effectiveness or harms of these interventions. Well-designed and adequately powered studies using functional outcome measures to test the interventions used in clinical practice are needed.

Development and assessment of a website presenting evidence-based information for people with multiple sclerosis: the IN-DEEP project.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are increasingly using the Internet in the daily management of their condition. They search for high-quality information in plain language, from independent sources, based on reliable and up-to-date evidence. The Integrating and Deriving Evidence, Experiences and Preferences (IN-DEEP) project in Italy and Australia aimed to provide people with MS and family members with an online source of evidence-based information, starting from their information needs. This paper reports on the Italian project's website. METHODS: Contents, layout and wording were developed with people with MS and pilot-tested. The website was evaluated using an online 29-item questionnaire for ease of language, contents, navigation, and usefulness of information aimed at people with MS, family members and the general population. RESULTS: The website ( http://indeep.istituto-besta.it/) is structured in multiple levels of information. The first topic was interferons-ß for people with relapsing-remitting MS. In all, 433 people responded to the survey (276 people with MS, 68 family members and 89 others). The mean age was 45 years, almost 90% had a high school diploma, about 80% had relapsing-remitting MS, and the median disease duration was seven years. About 90% judged the website clear, understandable, useful, and easy to navigate. Ninety percent of people with MS and family members would recommend it to others. Sixty-two percent reported they felt confident in making decisions on interferons-ß after reading the website. CONCLUSIONS: The model was judged clear and useful. It could be adapted to other topics and diseases. Clinicians may find it useful in their relationship with patients.

Online health information seeking: how people with multiple sclerosis find, assess and integrate treatment information to manage their health.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Internet is increasingly prominent as a source of health information for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). But there has been little exploration of the needs, experiences and preferences of people with MS for integrating treatment information into decision making, in the context of searching on the Internet. This was the aim of our study. DESIGN: Sixty participants (51 people with MS; nine family members) took part in a focus group or online forum. They were asked to describe how they find and assess reliable treatment information (particularly online) and how this changes over time. Thematic analysis was underpinned by a coding frame. RESULTS: Participants described that there was both too much information online and too little that applied to them. They spoke of wariness and scepticism but also empowerment. The availability of up-to-date and unbiased treatment information, including practical and lifestyle-related information, was important to many. Many participants were keen to engage in a 'research partnership' with health professionals and developed a range of strategies to enhance the trustworthiness of online information. We use the term 'self-regulation' to capture the variations in information seeking behaviour that participants described over time, as they responded to their changing information needs, their emotional state and growing expertise about MS. CONCLUSIONS: People with MS have developed a number of strategies to both find and integrate treatment information from a range of sources. Their reflections informed the development of an evidence-based consumer web site based on summaries of MS Cochrane reviews.

Perceived barriers and facilitators to participation in physical activity for children with disability: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Children with disability engage in less physical activity compared to their typically developing peers. Our aim was to explore the barriers and facilitators to participation in physical activity for this group. METHODS: Ten focus groups, involving 63 participants (23 children with disability, 20 parents of children with disability and 20 sport and recreation staff), were held to explore factors perceived as barriers and facilitators to participation in physical activity by children with disability. Data were analysed thematically by two researchers. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) similarities and differences, (2) people make the difference, (3) one size does not fit all, and (4) communication and connections. Key facilitators identified were the need for inclusive pathways that encourage ongoing participation as children grow or as their skills develop, and for better partnerships between key stakeholders from the disability, sport, education and government sectors. Children with disabilities' need for the early attainment of motor and social skills and the integral role of their families in supporting them were considered to influence their participation in physical activity. Children with disability were thought to face additional barriers to participation compared to children with typical development including a lack of instructor skills and unwillingness to be inclusive, negative societal attitudes towards disability, and a lack of local opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: The perspectives gathered in this study are relevant to the many stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of effective interventions, strategies and policies to promote participation in physical activity for children with disability. We outline ten strategies for facilitating participation.

Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is a critical component of clinical research. Different methods of presenting information to potential participants of clinical trials may improve the informed consent process. Audio-visual interventions (presented, for example, on the Internet or on DVD) are one such method. We updated a 2008 review of the effects of these interventions for informed consent for trial participation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of audio-visual information interventions regarding informed consent compared with standard information or placebo audio-visual interventions regarding informed consent for potential clinical trial participants, in terms of their understanding, satisfaction, willingness to participate, and anxiety or other psychological distress. SEARCH METHODS: We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, issue 6, 2012; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to 13 June 2012); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1947 to 12 June 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to June week 1 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to 27 June 2012); Current Contents (OvidSP) (1993 Week 27 to 2012 Week 26); and ERIC (Proquest) (searched 27 June 2012). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles, and contacted study authors and experts. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing audio-visual information alone, or in conjunction with standard forms of information provision (such as written or verbal information), with standard forms of information provision or placebo audio-visual information, in the informed consent process for clinical trials. Trials involved individuals or their guardians asked to consider participating in a real or hypothetical clinical study. (In the earlier version of this review we only included studies evaluating informed consent interventions for real studies). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We synthesised the findings using meta-analysis, where possible, and narrative synthesis of results. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered the impact of the quality of the overall evidence on the strength of the results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies involving data from 1884 participants. Nine studies included participants considering real clinical trials, and eight included participants considering hypothetical clinical trials, with one including both. All studies were conducted in high-income countries.There is still much uncertainty about the effect of audio-visual informed consent interventions on a range of patient outcomes. However, when considered across comparisons, we found low to very low quality evidence that such interventions may slightly improve knowledge or understanding of the parent trial, but may make little or no difference to rate of participation or willingness to participate. Audio-visual presentation of informed consent may improve participant satisfaction with the consent information provided. However its effect on satisfaction with other aspects of the process is not clear. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about anxiety arising from audio-visual informed consent. We found conflicting, very low quality evidence about whether audio-visual interventions took more or less time to administer. No study measured researcher satisfaction with the informed consent process, nor ease of use.The evidence from real clinical trials was rated as low quality for most outcomes, and for hypothetical studies, very low. We note, however, that this was in large part due to poor study reporting, the hypothetical nature of some studies and low participant numbers, rather than inconsistent results between studies or confirmed poor trial quality. We do not believe that any studies were funded by organisations with a vested interest in the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The value of audio-visual interventions as a tool for helping to enhance the informed consent process for people considering participating in clinical trials remains largely unclear, although trends are emerging with regard to improvements in knowledge and satisfaction. Many relevant outcomes have not been evaluated in randomised trials. Triallists should continue to explore innovative methods of providing information to potential trial participants during the informed consent process, mindful of the range of outcomes that the intervention should be designed to achieve, and balancing the resource implications of intervention development and delivery against the purported benefits of any intervention.More trials, adhering to CONSORT standards, and conducted in settings and populations underserved in this review, i.e. low- and middle-income countries and people with low literacy, would strengthen the results of this review and broaden its applicability. Assessing process measures, such as time taken to administer the intervention and researcher satisfaction, would inform the implementation of audio-visual consent materials.

Comparing face-to-face and online qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis.

We compared face-to-face focus groups and an online forum in qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and family members. Although the merits and challenges of online qualitative research have been considered by others, there is limited literature directly comparing these two data collection methods for people with disability or chronic illness. Twenty-seven people participated in one of four focus groups and 33 people took part in an online forum. Demographic and MS-related characteristics were similar between the two groups, with a slight nonsignificant trend toward nonmetropolitan residence in online forum participants. There was a high level of overlap in the themes generated between groups. Participant responses in the online forum were more succinct and on-topic, yet in the focus groups interaction was greater. Online qualitative research methods can facilitate research participation for people with chronic illness or disability, yielding generally comparable information to that gathered via face-to-face methods.

Consumer involvement in the development and dissemination of chronic kidney disease guidelines: a summary of a meaningful and sustainable approach developed by Caring for Australians and New ZealandeRs with kidney Impairment guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The involvement of consumers (people with lived experience of disease) in guidelines is widely advocated to improve their relevance and uptake. However, the approaches to consumer involvement in guidelines vary and are not well documented. We describe the consumer involvement framework of Caring for Australians and New ZealandeRs with kidney Impairment Guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a descriptive document analysis to collate all relevant policies, documents, e-mails, and presentations on consumer involvement in our organizations. We performed a narrative synthesis of collated data to summarize our evolving consumer involvement approach in guidelines. RESULTS: We involve consumers at all levels of Caring for Australians and New ZealandeRs with kidney Impairment guideline development and dissemination according to their capacity, from conducting consumer workshops to inform the scope of guidelines, to including consumers as members of the guideline Working Groups and overseeing operations and governance as members of the Steering Committee and staff. Our approach has resulted in tangible outcomes including high-priority topics on patient education, psychosocial care, and clinical care pathways, and focusing the literature reviews to assess patient-important outcomes. The ongoing partnership with consumers led to the generation of consumer version guidelines to improve guideline dissemination and translation to support shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: Meaningful consumer involvement can be achieved through a comprehensive approach across the entire lifecycle of guidelines. However, it must be individualized by ensuring that the involvement of consumers is timely and flexible. Future work is needed to assess the impact of consumer involvement in guideline development.

Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on immunisation uptake and parental knowledge. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to July 2012); EMBASE + Embase Classic (OvidSP) (1947 to July 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to July 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2012); Global Health (CAB) (1910 to July 2012); Global Health Library (WHO) (searched July 2012); Google Scholar (searched September 2012), ISI Web of Science (searched September 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles. We searched for ongoing trials in The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched August 2012) and for grey literature in The Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (searched August 2012). We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs evaluating the effects of face to face interventions delivered to individual parents or groups of parents to inform or educate about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face to face intervention. Early childhood vaccines are all recommended routine childhood vaccines outlined by the World Health Organization, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which is delivered to adolescents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed database search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs and one cluster RCT involving a total of 2978 participants. Three studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries and four were conducted in high-income countries. The cluster RCT did not contribute usable data to the review. The interventions comprised a mix of single-session and multi-session strategies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low and the studies were at moderate risk of bias overall. All these trials compared face to face interventions directed to individual parents with control.The three studies assessing the effect of a single-session intervention on immunisation status could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. The overall result is uncertain because the individual study results ranged from no evidence of effect to a significant increase in immunisation.Two studies assessed the effect of a multi-session intervention on immunisation status. These studies were also not pooled due to heterogeneity and the result was very uncertain, ranging from a non-significant decrease in immunisation to no evidence of effect.The two studies assessing the effect of a face to face intervention on knowledge or understanding of vaccination were very uncertain and were not pooled as data from one study were skewed. However, neither study showed evidence of an effect on knowledge scores in the intervention group. Only one study measured the cost of a case management intervention. The estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care.The review also considered the following secondary outcomes: intention to vaccinate child, parent experience of intervention, and adverse effects. No adverse effects related to the intervention were measured by any of the included studies, and there were no data on the other outcomes of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence available is low quality and suggests that face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about childhood vaccination have little to no impact on immunisation status, or knowledge or understanding of vaccination. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the cost of implementing the intervention, parent intention to vaccinate, parent experience of the intervention, or adverse effects. Given the apparently limited effect of such interventions, it may be feasible and appropriate to incorporate communication about vaccination into a healthcare encounter, rather than conduct it as a separate activity.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 2: consumer engagement in living guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and reflect on the consumer engagement approaches used in five living guidelines from the perspectives of consumers (i.e., patients, carers, the public, and their representatives) and guideline developers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a descriptive report, we used a template to capture engagement approaches and the experiences of consumers and guideline developers in living guidelines in Australia and the United Kingdom. Responses were summarized using descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: One guideline used a Consumer Panel, three included two to three consumers in the guideline development group, and one did both. Much of our experience was common to all guidelines (e.g., consumers felt welcomed but that their role initially lacked clarity). We identified six challenges and opportunities specific to living guidelines: managing the flow of work; managing engagement in online environments; managing membership of the panel; facilitating more flexibility, variety and depth in engagement; recruiting for specific skills-although these can be built over time; developing living processes to improve; and adapting consumer engagement together. CONCLUSION: Consumer engagement in living guidelines should follow established principles of consumer engagement in guidelines. Conceiving the engagement as living, underpinned by a living process evaluation, allows the approach to be developed with consumers over time.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Perceived barriers and facilitators to physical activity for children with disability: a systematic review.

AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the perceived barriers and facilitators to physical activity among children with disability. METHODS: 10 electronic databases were searched from the earliest time available to September 2010 to identify relevant articles. Articles were included if they examined the barriers or facilitators to physical activity for children with disability and were written in English. Articles were excluded if they included children with an acute, transient or chronic medical condition, examined sedentary leisure activities, or societal participation in general. Two reviewers independently assessed the search yields, extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. Barriers included lack of knowledge and skills, the child's preferences, fear, parental behaviour, negative attitudes to disability, inadequate facilities, lack of transport, programmes and staff capacity, and cost. Facilitators included the child's desire to be active, practising skills, involvement of peers, family support, accessible facilities, proximity of location, better opportunities, skilled staff and information. CONCLUSION: Personal, social, environmental, and policy and programme-related barriers and facilitators influence the amount of activity children with disability undertake. The barriers to physical activity have been studied more comprehensively than the facilitators.