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 We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3.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.

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.

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.

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy). SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both). DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes. RESULTS: Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.

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.

Accelerometers for the Assessment of Concussion in Male Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Concussion is common in the sporting arena and is often challenging to diagnose. The development of wearable head impact measurement systems has enabled measurement of head kinematics in contact sports. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the characteristics of head kinematics measured by an accelerometer system among male athletes diagnosed with concussion. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in July 2015. Inclusion criteria were English-language studies published after 1990 with a study population of male athletes, in any sport, where objectively measured biomechanical forces were reported in the setting of a concussive event. The random effects meta-analysis model was used to combine estimates of biomechanical force measurements in concussed athletes. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were conducted with high school and college football teams in the US. Included studies measured a combination of linear and rotational acceleration. The meta-analysed mean peak linear head acceleration associated with a concussive episode was 98.68 g (95 % CI 82.36-115.00) and mean peak rotational head acceleration was 5776.60 rads/s2 (95 % CI 4583.53-6969.67). The estimates of the biomechanical forces were consistent across studies, with I 2 values of 0 % for both meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Head impact monitoring through accelerometery has been shown to be useful with regard to characterising the kinematic load to the head associated with concussion. Future research with improved clinical outcome measures and head kinematic data may improve accuracy when evaluating concussion, and may assist with both interpretation of biomechanical data and the development and utilisation of implementation strategies for the technology.

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.