TY - JOUR
T1 - Prioritizing research needs based on a systematic evidence review
T2 - A pilot process for engaging stakeholders
AU - Gold, Rachel
AU - Whitlock, Evelyn P.
AU - Patnode, Carrie D.
AU - Mcginnis, Paul S.
AU - Buckley, David I.
AU - Morris, Cynthia
PY - 2013/12
Y1 - 2013/12
N2 - Background/context Systematic 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. Objective To 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. Methods We 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. Results Focus 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. Conclusion We 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.
AB - Background/context Systematic 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. Objective To 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. Methods We 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. Results Focus 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. Conclusion We 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.
KW - Research prioritization
KW - Stakeholder involvement
KW - Systematic evidence review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887935466&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887935466&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00716.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00716.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 21838830
AN - SCOPUS:84887935466
SN - 1369-6513
VL - 16
SP - 338
EP - 350
JO - Health Expectations
JF - Health Expectations
IS - 4
ER -