IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v18y2022i4ne1284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach

Author

Listed:
  • Heather Munthe‐Kaas
  • Heid Nøkleby
  • Sarah Rosenbaum

Abstract

Background Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform decision‐making in health, education, social care and environmental protection. However, decision makers still experience barriers to using reviews, including not knowing how findings might translate to their own contexts, and lack of collaboration with systematic review authors. The TRANSFER approach is a novel method that aims to support review authors to systematically and transparently collaborate with stakeholders to consider context and the transferability of review findings from the beginning of the review process. Such collaboration is intended to improve the usefulness and relevance of review findings for decision makers. Objectives We aim to explore the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide, and in doing so gain a better understanding of the role and perceived value of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews for informed decision‐making. Methods We conducted four user tests of groups using the guide, organized around simulated meetings between review authors and stakeholders. Review authors led the meeting using the TRANSFER approach conversation guide. We audio‐recorded and observed the meetings, collected feedback forms and conducted semi‐structured interviews with review authors following the meeting. We analysed the data using framework analysis to examine the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide and of stakeholder engagement more generally. Results Seventeen participants in four user groups participated in the user tests. Most participants were generally positive toward the structured approach using the conversation guide, and felt it would be useful in systematic review projects. We observed examples of misunderstanding of the terminology included in the guide, and received multiple suggestions for how to make the conversation guide more user friendly. We observed numerous challenges related to the hypothetical nature of a user test, including lack of familiarity with the review question/topic among participants and lack of preparation for the meeting. Conclusions Review authors and stakeholders are positive toward using a structured approach to guide collaboration within the context of a systematic review. The TRANSFER conversation guide helps participants to discuss the review question and context in a structured way. Such structured collaboration could help to improve the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews for decision making by improving the review question, inclusion criteria and consideration of transferability of review findings. The conversation guide needs to be modified to improve user experience. Further research is needed to explore stakeholder collaboration and the use of the TRANSFER conversation guide in systematic review processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Heather Munthe‐Kaas & Heid Nøkleby & Sarah Rosenbaum, 2022. "User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:18:y:2022:i:4:n:e1284
    DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1284
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/cl2.1284?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. Lois Orton & Ffion Lloyd-Williams & David Taylor-Robinson & Martin O'Flaherty & Simon Capewell, 2011. "The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Sasha Shepperd & Simon Lewin & Sharon Straus & Mike Clarke & Martin P Eccles & Ray Fitzpatrick & Geoff Wong & Aziz Sheikh, 2009. "Can We Systematically Review Studies That Evaluate Complex Interventions?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-8, August.
    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. Linda Campbell & Caroline Masquillier & Estrelle Thunnissen & Esther Ariyo & Hanani Tabana & Neo Sematlane & Anton Delport & Lorraine Tanyaradzwa Dube & Lucia Knight & Tair Kasztan Flechner & Edwin Wo, 2020. "Social and Structural Determinants of Household Support for ART Adherence in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-28, May.
    2. Nancy Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Flavia Donadelli, 2023. "A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    3. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    4. Cisnetto, Valentina & Barlow, James, 2020. "The development of complex and controversial innovations. Genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria eradication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    5. Zardo, Pauline & Collie, Alex & Livingstone, Charles, 2014. "External factors affecting decision-making and use of evidence in an Australian public health policy environment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 120-127.
    6. El-Jardali, Fadi & Bou-Karroum, Lama & Ataya, Nour & El-Ghali, Hana Addam & Hammoud, Rawan, 2014. "A retrospective health policy analysis of the development and implementation of the voluntary health insurance system in Lebanon: Learning from failure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-54.
    7. Olariu Ana Alexandra & Breazu Andreea & Popa Ștefan Cătălin & Popa Cătălina Florentina & Căruceru Nicoleta, 2024. "Decision-Making in Healthcare. A Bibliometric Exploration," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 18(1), pages 3242-3254.
    8. Natasa Loncarevic & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen & Anja Leppin & Maja Bertram, 2021. "Policymakers’ Research Capacities, Engagement, and Use of Research in Public Health Policymaking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-17, October.
    9. Dagenais, Christian & Dupont, Didier & Brière, Frédéric N. & Mena, Diego & Yale-Soulière, Gabrielle & Mc Sween-Cadieux, Esther, 2020. "Codifying explicit and tacit practitioner knowledge in community social pediatrics organizations: Evaluation of the first step of a knowledge transfer strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    10. Richard A. Sharpe & Tim Taylor & Lora E. Fleming & Karyn Morrissey & George Morris & Rachel Wigglesworth, 2018. "Making the Case for “Whole System” Approaches: Integrating Public Health and Housing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, October.
    11. Lavinia Bianco & Salvatore Raffa & Paolo Fornelli & Rita Mancini & Angela Gabriele & Francesco Medici & Claudia Battista & Stefania Greco & Giuseppe Croce & Aldo Germani & Simona Petrucci & Paolo Anib, 2022. "From Survey Results to a Decision-Making Matrix for Strategic Planning in Healthcare: The Case of Clinical Pathways," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-30, June.
    12. Paula Hooper & Sarah Foster & Billie Giles-Corti, 2019. "A Case Study of a Natural Experiment Bridging the ‘Research into Policy’ and ‘Evidence-Based Policy’ Gap for Active-Living Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Matthew Calver, 2016. "Measuring the Appropriate Outcomes for Better Decision-Making: A Framework to Guide the Analysis of Health Policy," CSLS Research Reports 2016-03, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    14. Courtney A. Cuthbertson & Don E. Albrecht & Scott Loveridge, 2017. "Rural versus urban perspectives on behavioral health issues and priorities," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(4), pages 515-526, August.
    15. Pierre-Olivier Bédard, 2015. "The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    16. Edwards, Rachael C. & Kneale, Dylan & Stansfield, Claire & Lester, Sarah, 2024. "What are the mechanisms driving the early stages of embedded researcher interventions? A qualitative process evaluation in English local government," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    17. Pauline Zardo & Adrian G Barnett & Nicolas Suzor & Tim Cahill, 2018. "Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, February.
    18. Mervyn Jun Rui Lim & Qi Xuan Joel Foo & Noreen Guek Cheng Chan & Samuel Miny, 2021. "PROTOCOL: Community‐based interventions for initiating early end‐of‐life conversations in nonterminally Ill adults: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), June.
    19. P Th Houngbo & H L S Coleman & M Zweekhorst & Tj De Cock Buning & D Medenou & J F G Bunders, 2017. "A Model for Good Governance of Healthcare Technology Management in the Public Sector: Learning from Evidence-Informed Policy Development and Implementation in Benin," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    20. Samuel Boudreault & Junqiao Chen & Kevin Y. Wu & Annette Plüddemann & Carl Heneghan, 2020. "Self‐management programmes for cirrhosis: A systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3625-3637, October.

    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:4:n:e1284. 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.