IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v18y2022i2ne1237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Olivia Magwood
  • Alison Riddle
  • Jennifer Petkovic
  • Lyubov Lytvyn
  • Joanne Khabsa
  • Pearl Atwere
  • Elie A. Akl
  • Pauline Campbell
  • Vivian Welch
  • Maureen Smith
  • Reem A. Mustafa
  • Heather Limburg
  • Leonila F. Dans
  • Nicole Skoetz
  • Sean Grant
  • Thomas W. Concannon
  • Peter Tugwell

Abstract

Background There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence‐based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health‐ and healthcare‐related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi‐Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series. Objectives The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi‐stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi‐stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist? Search Methods A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer‐reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline‐producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter. Selection Criteria We will include empirical qualitative and mixed‐method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer‐review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN‐McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development. Data Collection and Analysis All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two‐part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full‐text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form. Main Results The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi‐stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivia Magwood & Alison Riddle & Jennifer Petkovic & Lyubov Lytvyn & Joanne Khabsa & Pearl Atwere & Elie A. Akl & Pauline Campbell & Vivian Welch & Maureen Smith & Reem A. Mustafa & Heather Limburg & , 2022. "PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:18:y:2022:i:2:n:e1237
    DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1237
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/cl2.1237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sean Grant & Glen S. Hazlewood & Holly L. Peay & Ann Lucas & Ian Coulter & Arlene Fink & Dmitry Khodyakov, 2018. "Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 155-166, April.
    2. France Légaré & Antoine Boivin & Trudy van der Weijden & Christine Pakenham & Jako Burgers & Jean Légaré & Sylvie St-Jacques & Susie Gagnon, 2011. "Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 45-74, November.
    3. Joanne Khabsa & Jennifer Petkovic & Alison Riddle & Lyubov Lytvyn & Olivia Magwood & Pearl Atwere & Pauline Campbell & Srinivasa V. Katikireddi & Bronwen Merner & Mona Nasser & Stephanie Chang & Aleja, 2022. "PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kris Hoang & Steven E. Salterio & Jim Sylph, 2018. "Barriers to Transferring Auditing Research to Standard Setters," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 427-452, September.
    2. Dmitry Khodyakov & Sean Grant & Brian Denger & Kathi Kinnett & Ann Martin & Holly Peay & Ian Coulter, 2020. "Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 11-21, February.
    3. Bonetti, Lisa & Lai, Alessandro & Stacchezzini, Riccardo, 2023. "Stakeholder engagement in the public utility sector: Evidence from Italian ESG reports," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:18:y:2022:i:2:n:e1237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.