Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review.

BACKGROUND: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis. RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

Measures of Retention in HIV Care: A Study Within a Review.

People living with HIV (PLHIV) need lifelong medical care. However, retention in HIV care is not measured uniformly, making it challenging to compare or pool data. The objective of this study within a review (SWAR) is to describe the assortment of definitions used for retention in HIV care in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a SWAR, drawing data from an overview of systematic reviews on interventions to improve the HIV care cascade. Ethics review was not required for this analysis of secondary data. We identified RCTs of interventions used to improve retention in care for PLHIV, including all age groups and extracted the definitions used and their characteristics. We identified 50 trials that measured retention published between 2007 and 2021 and provided 59 definitions for retention in care. The definitions consisted of nine different characteristics with follow-up time (n = 47), and clinical visits (n = 36) most used. The definitions of retention in HIV care are highly heterogeneous. In this study, we present the pros and cons of characteristics used to measure retention in HIV care.

Author queries via email text elicited high response and took less reviewer time than data forms - a randomised study within a review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two strategies for requesting additional information for systematic reviews (SR) from study authors. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised study within a SR of hospital volume-outcome relationships in total knee arthroplasty. We sent personalized email requests for additional information to study authors as either email text ("Email" group) or attachment with self-developed, personalised data request forms ("Attachment" group). The primary outcome was the response rate, the secondary outcomes were the data completeness rate and the reviewer time invested in author contact. RESULTS: Of 57 study authors, 29 were randomised to the Email group and 28 to the Attachment group. The response rate was 93% for Email and 75% for Attachment (odds ratio 4.5, 95% confidence interval [0.9-24.0]). Complete data were provided by 55% (Email) vs. 36% (Attachment) of authors (odds ratio 2.2 [0.8-6.4]). The mean reviewer time was shorter in the Email (mean ± standard deviation of 20.2±14.4 minutes/author) than the Attachment group (31.8±14.4 minutes/author) with a mean difference of 11.6 [4.1-19.1] minutes/author. CONCLUSION: Personalised email requests elicited high response but only moderate data completeness rates regardless of the method (email text or attachment). Email requests as text took less reviewer time than creating attachments.

Contacting authors by telephone increased response proportions compared with emailing: results of a randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare response proportions and research costs of telephone calling vs. continued emailing nonresponding authors of studies included in a systematic review. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Key features of included studies were poorly reported in a systematic review of diabetes quality improvement interventions. We developed a survey to request additional information from contact authors. After three email contact attempts, only 76 of 279 authors (27%) had completed the survey. In this study, we randomly assigned nonresponding authors to contact by telephone calling vs. continued emailing to compare the effect of these strategies on response proportions and research costs. RESULTS: We randomized 87 authors to telephone and 89 to email contact. Telephone contact increased survey completion (36.7% vs. 20.2%; adjusted risk difference of 15.6% [95% confidence interval: 2.90%, 28.4%]; adjusted odds ratio 2.26 [95% confidence interval: 1.10, 4.76]) but required more time to deliver (20 vs. 10 hours in total; 14 vs. 7 minutes per randomized author; 26 vs. 4 weeks), and cost more (total intervention cost of $504 Canadian dollars vs. $252 for the telephone and email arm, respectively). CONCLUSION: Contacting nonresponding authors of included studies by telephone increased response compared with emailing but required more investigator time and had higher cost.