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.

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.

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.

Broadening the diversity of consumers engaged in guidelines: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Guideline developers are encouraged to engage patients, carers and their representatives ('consumers') from diverse backgrounds in guideline development to produce more widely applicable guidelines. However, consumers from diverse backgrounds are infrequently included in guidelines and there is scant research to support guideline developers to do this. OBJECTIVES: To identify principles and approaches to broaden the diversity of consumers engaged in guideline development. DESIGN: Scoping review and semi-structured interviews. METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2020 for studies, reports and guidance documents. Inclusion criteria included the terms 'consumer' (patients, carers and their representatives), 'diversity' (defined using the PROGRESS-PLUS mnemonic) and 'consumer engagement' (the active involvement of consumers at any stage of guideline development). We also conducted four interviews with consumers and guideline developers. We used descriptive synthesis to identify themes, and summarised information about implemented approaches used to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines. RESULTS: From 10 included documents, we identified eight themes. Themes covered general engagement concepts (Respectful partnerships; Recruitment; Expectations, process and review); specific concepts about guideline development group (GDG) engagement (Characteristics of guideline personnel; Consumers' role, characteristics and prominence; Preparing and supporting consumers); and other (non-GDG) approaches (Online methods; Consultations and research-based approaches). The most commonly included PROGRESS-PLUS categories were Disability, Race/culture/ethnicity/language, Place of residence and Other vulnerable (eg, 'disadvantaged groups'). Each theme included the views of both consumers and guideline developers. We found descriptions of 12 implemented engagement approaches to broaden diversity of consumers in guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Relationship-building, mitigating power imbalances and meeting consumers where they are at underpin our findings. Engaging with diverse groups may require greater attention to building formal, respectful partnerships and employing inclusive engagement methods.

Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group.

ABSTRACT: Knowledge user consultation is often limited or omitted in the conduct of scoping reviews. Not including knowledge users within the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews could be due to a lack of guidance or understanding about what consultation requires and the subsequent benefits. Knowledge user engagement in evidence synthesis, including consultation approaches, has many associated benefits, including improved relevance of the research and better dissemination and implementation of research findings. Scoping reviews, however, have not been specifically focused on in terms of research into knowledge user consultation and evidence syntheses. In this paper, we will present JBI's guidance for knowledge user engagement in scoping reviews based on the expert opinion of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. We offer specific guidance on how this can occur and provide information regarding how to report and evaluate knowledge user engagement within scoping reviews. We believe that scoping review authors should embed knowledge user engagement into all scoping reviews and strive towards a co-creation model.

Living Systematic Reviews.

Systematic reviews are difficult to keep up to date, but failure to do so leads to poor review currency and accuracy. "Living systematic review" (LSR) is an approach that aims to continually update a review, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs may be particularly important in fields where research evidence is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain, and new research may change policy or practice decisions.This chapter describes the concept and processes of living systematic reviews. It describes the general principles of LSRs, when they might be of particular value, and how their procedures differ from conventional systematic reviews. The chapter focuses particularly on two methods of sequential meta-analysis that may be particularly useful for LSRs: Trial Sequential Analysis and Sequential Meta-Analysis, which both control for Type I error, Type II error (failing to detect a genuine effect) and take account of heterogeneity.

Apolipoprotein E4 Polymorphism and Outcomes from Traumatic Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The mortality of traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been largely static despite advances in monitoring and imaging techniques. Substantial variance exists in outcome, not fully accounted for by baseline characteristics or injury severity, and genetic factors likely play a role in this variance. The aims of this systematic review were to examine the evidence for a link between the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) polymorphism and TBI outcomes and where possible, to quantify the effect size via meta-analysis. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and gray literature in December 2017. We included studies of APOE genotype in relation to functional adult TBI outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies Risk of Bias Assessment Instrument and the prognostic studies adaptation of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. In addition, we contacted investigators and included an additional 160 patients whose data had not been made available for previous analyses, giving a total sample size of 2593 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated higher odds of a favorable outcome following TBI in those not possessing an ApoE ɛ4 allele compared with ɛ4 carriers and homozygotes (odds ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.84; p = 0.02). The influence of APOE4 on neuropsychological functioning following TBI remained uncertain, with multiple conflicting studies. We conclude that the ApoE ɛ4 allele confers a small risk of poor outcome following TBI, with analysis by TBI severity not possible based on the currently available published data. Further research into the long-term neuropsychological impact and risk of dementia is warranted.

A New Approach to Evidence Synthesis in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are online summaries of health care research that are updated as new research becomes available. This new development in evidence synthesis is being trialled as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) project. We will develop and sustain an international TBI knowledge community that maintains up-to-date, high quality LSRs of the current state of knowledge in the most important questions in TBI. Automatic search updates will be run three-monthly, and newly identified studies incorporated into the review. Review teams will seek to publish journal updates at regular intervals, with abridged updates available more frequently online. Future project stages include the integration of LSR and other study findings into "living" clinical practice guidance. It is hoped these efforts will go some way to bridging current temporal disconnects between evidence, guidelines, and practice in TBI.

Adherence to Guidelines in Adult Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review.

Guidelines aim to improve the quality of medical care and reduce treatment variation. The extent to which guidelines are adhered to in the field of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is unknown. The objectives of this systematic review were to (1) quantify adherence to guidelines in adult patients with TBI, (2) examine factors influencing adherence, and (3) study associations of adherence to clinical guidelines and outcome. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and grey literature in October 2014. We included studies of evidence-based (inter)national guidelines that examined the acute treatment of adult patients with TBI. Methodological quality was assessed using the Research Triangle Institute item bank and Quality in Prognostic Studies Risk of Bias Assessment Instrument. Twenty-two retrospective and prospective observational cohort studies, reported in 25 publications, were included, describing adherence to 13 guideline recommendations. Guideline adherence varied considerably between studies (range 18-100%) and was higher in guideline recommendations based on strong evidence compared with those based on lower evidence, and lower in recommendations of relatively more invasive procedures such as craniotomy. A number of patient-related factors, including age, Glasgow Coma Scale, and intracranial pathology, were associated with greater guideline adherence. Guideline adherence to Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines seemed to be associated with lower mortality. Guideline adherence in TBI is suboptimal, and wide variation exists between studies. Guideline adherence may be improved through the development of strong evidence for guidelines. Further research specifying hospital and management characteristics that explain variation in guideline adherence is warranted.

Epidemiology of Traumatic Brain Injury in Europe: A Living Systematic Review.

This systematic review provides a comprehensive, up-to-date summary of traumatic brain injury (TBI) epidemiology in Europe, describing incidence, mortality, age, and sex distribution, plus severity, mechanism of injury, and time trends. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in January 2015 for observational, descriptive, English language studies reporting incidence, mortality, or case fatality of TBI in Europe. There were no limitations according to date, age, or TBI severity. Methodological quality was assessed using the Methodological Evaluation of Observational Research checklist. Data were presented narratively. Sixty-six studies were included in the review. Country-level data were provided in 22 studies, regional population or treatment center catchment area data were reported by 44 studies. Crude incidence rates varied widely. For all ages and TBI severities, crude incidence rates ranged from 47.3 per 100,000, to 694 per 100,000 population per year (country-level studies) and 83.3 per 100,000, to 849 per 100,000 population per year (regional-level studies). Crude mortality rates ranged from 9 to 28.10 per 100,000 population per year (country-level studies), and 3.3 to 24.4 per 100,000 population per year (regional-level studies.) The most common mechanisms of injury were traffic accidents and falls. Over time, the contribution of traffic accidents to total TBI events may be reducing. Case ascertainment and definitions of TBI are variable. Improved standardization would enable more accurate comparisons.

Blood-Based Protein Biomarkers for the Management of Traumatic Brain Injuries in Adults Presenting to Emergency Departments with Mild Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Accurate diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is critical to effective management and intervention, but can be challenging in patients with mild TBI. A substantial number of studies have reported the use of circulating biomarkers as signatures for TBI, capable of improving diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision making beyond current practice standards. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively and critically evaluate the existing body of evidence for the use of blood protein biomarkers (S100 calcium binding protein B [S100B], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], neuron specific enolase [NSE], ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 [UCH-L1]. tau, and neurofilament proteins) for diagnosis of intracranial lesions on CT following mild TBI. Effects of potential confounding factors and differential diagnostic performance of the included markers were explored. Further, appropriateness of study design, analysis, quality, and demonstration of clinical utility were assessed. Studies published up to October 2016 were identified through searches of MEDLINE®, Embase, EBM Reviews, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization (WHO), International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and clinicaltrials.gov. Following screening of the identified articles, 26 were selected as relevant. We found that measurement of S100B can help informed decision making in the emergency department, possibly reducing resource use; however, there is insufficient evidence that any of the other markers is ready for clinical application. Our work pointed out serious problems in the design, analysis, and reporting of many of the studies, and identified substantial heterogeneity and research gaps. These findings emphasize the importance of methodologically rigorous studies focused on a biomarker's intended use, and defining standardized, validated, and reproducible approaches. The living nature of this systematic review, which will summarize key updated information as it becomes available, can inform and guide future implementation of biomarkers in the clinical arena.

Genetic Influences on Patient-Oriented Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review of Non-Apolipoprotein E Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms.

There is a growing literature on the impact of genetic variation on outcome in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Whereas a substantial proportion of these publications have focused on the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, several have explored the influence of other polymorphisms. We undertook a systematic review of the impact of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in non-apolipoprotein E (non-APOE) genes associated with patient outcomes in adult TBI). We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and gray literature from inception to the beginning of August 2017 for studies of genetic variance in relation to patient outcomes in adult TBI. Sixty-eight articles were deemed eligible for inclusion into the systematic review. The SNPs described were in the following categories: neurotransmitter (NT) in 23, cytokine in nine, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in 12, mitochondrial genes in three, and miscellaneous SNPs in 21. All studies were based on small patient cohorts and suffered from potential bias. A range of SNPs associated with genes coding for monoamine NTs, BDNF, cytokines, and mitochondrial proteins have been reported to be associated with variation in global, neuropsychiatric, and behavioral outcomes. An analysis of the tissue, cellular, and subcellular location of the genes that harbored the SNPs studied showed that they could be clustered into blood-brain barrier associated, neuroprotective/regulatory, and neuropsychiatric/degenerative groups. Several small studies report that various NT, cytokine, and BDNF-related SNPs are associated with variations in global outcome at 6-12 months post-TBI. The association of these SNPs with neuropsychiatric and behavioral outcomes is less clear. A definitive assessment of role and effect size of genetic variation in these genes on outcome remains uncertain, but could be clarified by an adequately powered genome-wide association study with appropriate recording of outcomes.

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.

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Living systematic reviews (LSRs) offer an approach to keeping high-quality evidence synthesis continually up to date, so the most recent, relevant and reliable evidence can be used to inform policy and practice, resulting in improved quality of care and patient health outcomes. However, they require modifications to authoring and editorial processes and pose technical and publishing challenges. Several teams within Cochrane and the international Living Evidence Network have been piloting living systematic reviews. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation with participants involved in six LSRs (three Cochrane and three non-Cochrane). Up to three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 participants involved with one or more of the pilot LSRs. Interviews explored participants' experiences contributing to the LSR, barriers and facilitators to their conduct and opportunities for future development. Pilot team members also completed monthly surveys capturing time for key tasks and the number of citations screened for each review. RESULTS: Across the pilot LSRs, search frequency was monthly to three-monthly, with some using tools such as machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to screen searches. Varied approaches were used to communicate updates to readers. The number of citations screened varied widely between the reviews, from three to 300 citations per month. The amount of time spent per month by the author team on each review also varied from 5 min to 32 h. Participants were enthusiastic to be involved in the LSR pilot. They highlighted the importance of a motivated and well-organised team; the value of technology enablers to improve workflow efficiencies; the need to establish reliable and efficient processes to sustain living reviews; and the potential for saving time and effort in the long run. Participants highlighted challenges with the current publication processes, managing ongoing workload and the lack of resources to support LSRs in the long term. CONCLUSIONS: Findings to date support feasibility and acceptability of LSR production. There are challenges that need to be addressed for living systematic reviews to be sustainable and have maximum value. The findings from this study will be used in discussions with the Cochrane community, key decision makers and people more broadly concerned with LSRs to identify and develop priorities for scale-up.

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.

Chronic pain medication management of older populations: Key points from a national conference and innovative opportunities for pharmacy practice.

OBJECTIVE: Inappropriate use of pain medication has serious consequences for older populations. Experts in the field have noted an increase in opioid prescriptions, and opioid-related hospitalisations and deaths among this vulnerable population. In the pursuit of educating pharmacists, physicians, allied healthcare professionals, researchers, academics and the public facing the challenges of chronic pain medication management, 'The Inaugural Monash University School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (SPHPM) Best Practice in Chronic Pain Medication Management Day Conference' was held in December 2016 at the Alfred Medical Research and Education Precinct (Melbourne, Australia). METHODS: Fifteen experts presented on aspects of chronic pain epidemiology and current analgesic use in older Australians, and discussed current practice and associated challenges. RESULTS: Presenters highlighted the dramatic increase in opioid prescribing, development of tolerance and withdrawal symptoms, problems with abuse and addiction, increased risk of death from overdose or suicide, potentiation of sedative effects with concurrent use of anxiolytics/hypnotics, and medication diversion. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists are very accessible to patients and are crucial members of medication management teams. They have the necessary medication expertise to review medication regimens and provide patient education. Towards addressing chronic pain medication management of older populations, pharmacists can contribute in several ways, such as being aware of relevant guidelines and completing further training, contributing to policy and guideline development, participating in multidisciplinary panels, working groups and pain management teams, collaborating on research projects, and educating the community. With regards to opioid medication management, pharmacists are in an ideal position to: monitor prescription dispensing and potential misuse, provide education about overuse, and, if appropriate, provide access to naloxone. In order to fulfil these roles and responsibilities, allied healthcare professionals should be educated and informed, and opportunities for continuing professional education should be available and utilised. Pharmacists should have the necessary knowledge and skills to optimise chronic pain management, and to both deliver and inform policies and guidelines on pharmacological management of chronic pain in older people.