Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39234445›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of public health2024

A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health.

Dyon Hoekstra, Margot Mütsch, Annegret Borchard, Christina Kien, Ursula Griebler, Erik Von Elm, Eva Rehfuess, Ansgar Gerhardus, Stefan K Lhachimi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Dyon HoekstraResearch Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology (BIPS), Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Margot MütschDepartment of Epidemiology, Institute of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Annegret BorchardDepartment of Epidemiology, Institute of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christina KienDepartment for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems), Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Ursula GrieblerDepartment for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems), Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Erik Von ElmCochrane Switzerland Center for Primary Care and Public Health, University Center of General Medicine and Public Health, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Eva RehfuessInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ansgar GerhardusHealth Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Stefan K LhachimiResearch Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology (BIPS), Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to develop and apply a structured approach for prioritising topics for systematic reviews in public health, framed according to the readily applicable PICO format, which encourages the involvement of stakeholders' preferences in a transparent matter. Methods: We developed a multi-stage process, consisting of a scoping and two Delphi stages with web-based surveys and invited public health stakeholders in Switzerland to participate: First, respondents specified topics for different public health domains, which were reformulated in a PICO format by content analysis. Second, respondents rated the topics using five stakeholder-refined assessment criteria. Overall rankings were calculated to assess differences between stakeholder groups and rating criteria. Results: In total, 215 respondents suggested 728 topics altogether. The response rate in the two Delphi stages was 91.6% and 77.6%, respectively. Most top-rated review topics focused on the effectiveness of interventions providing education to different target groups, followed by interventions to increase access to specific healthcare services. Conclusion: Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.

Indexed as

Public HealthStakeholder ParticipationDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandSystematic Reviews as TopicDelphi techniquepriority settingpublic healthstakeholder involvementsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39234445
PMCPMC11371559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.