ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2013
Prioritizing research needs based on a systematic evidence review: a pilot process for engaging stakeholders.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prioritising child health and maternity evidence-based interventions or service models: a stakeholder-driven process.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Survey to identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland during and following the COVID-19 pandemic.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Grass-roots entrepreneurship complements traditional top-down innovation in lung and breast cancer.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- Hope, disappointment and perseverance: Reflections of people with Myalgic encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and Multiple Sclerosis participating in biomedical research. A qualitative focus group study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
- Identifying top 10 primary care research priorities from international stakeholders using a modified Delphi method.PloS one · 2018Article
- Article
- Squaring the circle: a priority-setting method for evidence-based service development, reconciling research with multiple stakeholder views.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- There are some big changes at Health Expectations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2013Article
- Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer diagnostics using a regional stakeholder approach.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background/contextSystematic evidence reviews (SERs) identify knowledge gaps in the literature, a logical starting place for prioritizing future research. Varied methods have been used to elicit diverse stakeholders' input in such prioritization.
objectiveTo pilot a simple, easily replicable process for simultaneously soliciting consumer, clinician and researcher input in the identification of research priorities, based on the results of the 2009 SER on screening adults for depression in primary care.
methodsWe recruited 20 clinicians, clinic staff, researchers and patient advocates to participate in a half-day event in October 2009. We presented SER research methods and the results of the 2009 SER. Participants took part in focus groups, organized by profession; broad themes from these groups were then prioritized in a formal exercise. The focus group content was also subsequently analysed for specific themes.
resultsFocus group themes generally reacted to the evidence presented; few were articulated as research questions. Themes included the need for resources to respond to positive depression screens, the impact of depression screening on delivery systems, concerns that screening tools do not address comorbid or situational causes of depression and a perceived 'disconnect' between screening and treatment. The two highest-priority themes were the system effects of screening for depression and whether depression screening effectively leads to improved treatment.
conclusionWe successfully piloted a simple, half-day, easily replicable multi-stakeholder engagement process based on the results of a recent SER. We recommend a number of potential improvements in future endeavours to replicate this process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.