Background
Methods
Commissioning agency
Study design
Protocol
Eligibility criteria
Population
Intervention
Comparators
Outcomes
Study designs
Time periods
Setting
Other
Information sources and search strategy
Study selection process
Data items and data abstraction process
Risk of bias assessment
Synthesis of results
Results
Literature search
Characteristics of included documents (n = 84)
Document characteristics (n = 84) | Count (%) | |
---|---|---|
Year of publication | 2005–2007 | 6 (7.1%) |
2008–2010 | 16 (19.0%) | |
2011–2013 | 30 (35.7%) | |
2014–2016 | 32 (38.1%) | |
Geographic region | Africa | 4 (4.8%) |
Asia | 4 (4.8%) | |
Australia & New Zealand | 11 (13.1%) | |
Europe | 20 (23.8%) | |
North America | 45 (53.6%) | |
Funding source type | Industry-sponsored | 2 (2.4%) |
Non-sponsored | 3 (3.6%) | |
Not reported | 13 (15.5%) | |
Public-sponsored | 66 (78.6%) | |
Journal discipline | General & Internal Medicine | 4 (4.8%) |
Not applicable (reports) | 6 (7.1%) | |
Medicine, General & Internal | 6 (7.1%) | |
Health Policy & Services | 7 (8.3%) | |
Public, Environmental & Occupational Health | 14 (16.7%) | |
Other | 21 (25.0%) | |
Health Care Sciences & Services | 26 (31.0%) | |
Knowledge synthesis method | Qualitative review | 1 (1.2%) |
Critical Interpretive Synthesis | 1 (1.2%) | |
Mixed-method review | 1 (1.2%) | |
Health Technology Assessment | 1 (1.2%) | |
Scoping Review & Systematic Review | 1 (1.2%) | |
Horizontal scan | 1 (1.2%) | |
Rapid Realist Review | 2 (2.4%) | |
Overview of Reviews | 3 (3.6%) | |
Realist Review | 5 (6.0%) | |
Rapid Review | 10 (11.9%) | |
Scoping Review | 12 (14.3%) | |
Literature review | 16 (19.0%) | |
Systematic review | 30 (35.7%) | |
Article type | Methodology paper | 3 (3.6%) |
Descriptive paper | 8 (9.5%) | |
Application paper | 73 (86.9%) |
RQ1: Contextual factors of included documents (n = 84)
Contextual factors (n = 84) | Count (%) | |
---|---|---|
Settings | European Union Healthcare Systems | 1 (1.2%) |
Community Health | 2 (2.4%) | |
National Public Health | 2 (2.4%) | |
Local hospital | 2 (2.4%) | |
Global health | 3 (3.6%) | |
Health network | 4 (4.8%) | |
Provincial/state healthcare system | 4 (4.8%) | |
Various policy settings | 5 (6.0%) | |
Local healthcare system | 5 (6.0%) | |
Applied research setting | 16 (19.0%) | |
National healthcare system | 40 (47.6%) | |
Focus of knowledge synthesis | Health economics | 1 (1.2%) |
Research reporting guideline | 1 (1.2%) | |
Health informatics | 1 (1.2%) | |
Emergency preparedness and management | 1 (1.2%) | |
Community engagement | 1 (1.2%) | |
Clinical practice guidelines | 3 (3.6%) | |
Medical intervention | 3 (3.6%) | |
Environmental/social determinants of health | 3 (3.6%) | |
Quality indicators | 3 (3.6%) | |
Health policy | 4 (4.8%) | |
Decision-aid tool | 4 (4.8%) | |
Research priority setting | 5 (6.0%) | |
Health human resources | 8 (9.5%) | |
Stakeholder engagement strategy in research | 9 (10.7%) | |
Public health | 10 (11.9%) | |
Knowledge translation | 13 (15.5%) | |
Health services delivery | 14 (16.7%) | |
Country economy | High-income country | 72 (85.7%) |
Low- and middle-income country | 10 (11.9%) | |
Middle and high income | 1 (1.2%) | |
Low, middle, and high income | 1 (1.2%) |
Author, year; country | Country income status, Context | Type of knowledge users involved | Type of engagement | Challenges to engagement | Benefits of engagement | Outcomes of engagement |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agweyu 2012 [68]; Kenya | Middle-income, National healthcare system | • Policy-makers | • Consultation with key informants • Formal meeting/workshop with expert panel | • Limited resources and an absence of mechanisms to rapidly gain wider opinions from key sources including patients, caregivers and policy-makers • Striking a balance between research evidence and expert opinions in the decision-making process | Not reported | Not reported |
Akl 2016 [41]; Lebanon | Middle-income, Applied research settings | • Policy-makers | • Consultation with key informants • Focus groups, interviews and formal meeting/workshop with expert panel | Not reported | • A multidisciplinary team developed and validated the tool | Not reported |
Buchan 2011 [69]; Brazil | Middle-income, National healthcare system | • Policy-makers | • Key informant interviews | • Time and resource limitations meant that only some of the key individuals who were informants on the issue could be consulted | • Key informants provided additional reports and grey literature for review and provided contextual evidence | Not reported |
Clarke 2016 [70]; Cambodia | Middle-income, National healthcare system | • Healthcare professionals & organizations • Government agencies • Policy-makers | • Key informant interviews, focus groups and surveys | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Higashi 2011 [71]; Vietnam | Middle-income, Various policy settings | • Government agencies • Policy-makers | • Key informant interviews, focus groups and surveys • Formal meeting/workshop with key informant | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Muller 2005 [72]; South Africa | Middle-income, National healthcare system | • Government agencies • Non-government agencies • Patients, patient organizations & caregivers • Policy-makers | • Consultations with principal knowledge users • Working group | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Orem 2012 [73]; Uganda | Low-income, Various policy settings | • Policy-makers | • Key informant interviews | • Finding key informants with relevant interest in a given policy concern • Establishing unbiased opinion based on political interest | • Key informant interviews with policy-makers provided contextual considerations for knowledge synthesis and subsequent translation | Not reported |
Sidibe 2014 [74]; Kenya | Middle-income, National healthcare system | • Community members & advocates • Funding bodies • Health system managers • Non-government agencies • Policy-makers | • Formal meeting/workshop with key informants | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Teerawattananon 2016 [75]; Thailand | Middle-income, National healthcare system | • Funding bodies • Healthcare professionals & organizations • Industry stakeholders • Non-government agencies • Patients, patient organizations & caregivers • Policy analysts • Policy-makers | • In-person Delphi with expert panel • Formal meeting/workshop with key informants | • Stakeholder topic expertise can limit the scope of the discussion | • Stakeholders can help prioritize research topics for assessment, help fine-tune research questions and the scope of study, and verify and validate preliminary results as well as fine-tune policy recommendations • Once final results have been obtained and policy recommendations have been formed, a stakeholder consultation meeting can help to verify and validate recommendations • Can be a powerful approach to systematically develop and legitimise policy-relevant HTA information | Not reported |
Wiysonge 2012 [76]; South Africa | Middle-income, National healthcare system | • Health system managers | • Key informant interviews | Not reported | • Key informant interviews helped define the review scope and helped ensure the report addresses relevant practice issues | Not reported |
RQ2: Methodology documents (n = 3)
Article, Year; Country | Country income status, Context | Information source | Type of engagement | Challenges to engagement | Factors for successful engagements |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cottrell 2014 [46]; USA | High-income, Applied research settings | 24 articles, 34 Key informant interviews | Wide variety | • Additional time and resources • Selection of stakeholders/achieve representativeness • Reliability/consistency in participation • Maintain confidentiality • Manage and support stakeholdersOvercome tokenism | • Engage stakeholders early in the process to establish credibility • Anticipate controversies in stakeholder opinions • Ensure transparency and accountability |
Guise 2013 [48]; USA | Low, middle and high income, Applied research settings | 56 articles, 13 Key informant interviews | • One-on-one interviews • Focus groups • Citizen juries • Town meetings • Workshops/symposia/conferences • Ranking and Delphi/Nominal group techniques | • Lack of time on the part of stakeholders (busy) • Lack of release time and compensation for members of the public • Researcher need for quick response (time frame too short for community to weigh in) • Stakeholder needs not met in previous engagement | • Engage stakeholders early in the process • Clearly detail expectations (e.g., timelines, tasks) • Maintain ongoing relationships to building trust and credibility • Provide opportunities for people to ask questions before meetings • Provide pre-meeting information materials • Pre-meeting “icebreakers,” especially when engaging stakeholders with differing experiences/perspectives • Include someone with similar training as the stakeholder can be helpful • Respect and welcome all stakeholder opinions • Follow-up presentation of results is important to stakeholders • Be clear about the stakeholder roles, do not expect community members to do academic duties • Be sensitive to the time constraints of all stakeholders |
Oliver 2016 [47]; UK | High-income, Various policy settings | 18 Key informant interviews | • Knowledge broker to facilitate conversations • Advisory panel and Expert panel for consultations | • Lack of knowledge and understanding between researchers and policy-makers • Considerable time required to negotiate review questions with policy-makers • Researchers lacking experience with stakeholder engagementIdentifying appropriate stakeholder to engage • Managing timelines, resources and costs associated with engagement | • Engage stakeholders early in the process • Manage stakeholder expectations • Maintain appropriate communication and transparency • Face-to-face meetings were more successful than telephone calls (not formally evaluated) |
RQ2: Descriptive documents (n = 8)
Author, Year, Country | Country income group, Context | Type of knowledge users involved | Type of engagement | Challenges to engagement | Benefits of engagement | Outcomes of engagement |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atkins 2005 [49], USA | High-income, National healthcare system | • Policy-makers | • Consultation with expert panel | • Establishing early buy-in • Managing knowledge user expectation what evidence is available and what questions can be answered | • Early involvement in the research process can ensure the report addresses relevant clinical or policy issues • Knowing how the knowledge user will use the findings of the report can help inform data synthesis | Not reported |
Best 2009 [50], Canada | High-income, Various levels of government decision-makers | • Policy-makers | • Consultation with principal knowledge users and expert panel | Not reported | Not reported | Participating content experts and decision-makers have been highly satisfied. (Not formally evaluated) |
Crawford 2015 [51], USA | High-income, Various levels of government decision-makers | • Healthcare professionals & organizations • Patients, patient organizations & caregivers • Policy-makers | • Consultation with Steering group | Not reported | • Involving stakeholders ensures research focus stays relevant to the end-user • Allows for translation from research to practice to occur more effectively | Not reported |
Keown 2008 [33], Canada | High-income, Various levels of government decision-makers | • Community members & advocates • Government agencies • Policy-makers • Regulatory bodies | • Consultation with key informants throughout he review • Principal knowledge users included as a review team member | • Balancing methodological rigor with flexibility to stakeholder needs • Stakeholder interactions can be time and resource-intensive • Some stakeholder feedback may not be feasible due to time and resource limitations • Finding an appropriate and knowledgeable stakeholder to participate as a review team member can be difficult | • Stakeholders’ input added depth to the review • Timing of stakeholder participation leads to specific advantages (e.g., early engagement led to exhaustive literature search and refined research questions, later engagement helped refine the report) • Research findings are more useful and relevant to end-users • Opportunity to build capacity of the knowledge users in research methods • On-going collaboration increases the chances for future collaborations | The stakeholder engagement experience has been positive (not formally evaluated) |
Khangura 2012 [52], Canada | High-income, Local healthcare system | • Health system managers • Policy-makers | • Consultation with principal knowledge users | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
McIntosh 2016 [53], UK | High-income, National healthcare system | • Government agencies • Healthcare professionals & organizations • Industry stakeholder • Patients, patient organizations & caregivers | • Consultation with principal knowledge users and expert panel • Formal meeting/ workshop with advisory group, principal knowledge users and expert panel | • Requires development of efficient and flexible methods to identify and engage appropriate contributors • Managing expectations in order to ensure that rapid review conclusionsare not oriented by vested interests • Striking the right balance between engagement and pragmatism | Not reported | Upon completion, action review methods are used to solicit feedback from the topic referrer on whether review met expectations and what impact the evidence review and advice had. Surveys and semi-structured interviews conducted to explore perceptions of the utility and impact of rapid review-based advice among key decision-makers, including directors of finance, planning, public health and medicine |
Mindell 2010 [55], UK | High-income, Local healthcare system | • Government agencies • Policy-makers | • Consultation with steering group • Formal meeting/ workshop with key informants | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Saul 2013 [54], Canada | High-income, Various levels of government decision-makers | • Policy-makers | • Consultation with principal knowledge users | • Maintaining on-going membership and engagement in rapidly changing political environments where membership of the advisory group may change during the course of a given project | • Advisory group role allows key agency or government staff to be engaged in the process without requiring excessive time commitments | Not reported |
RQ2: Application papers (n = 73)
RQ2: Frameworks used to inform engagement strategy
RQ3: Outcomes of engagement (n = 84)
RQ4: Barriers and facilitators to engagement (n = 31)
Factors reported in 31 papers | Seen as a facilitator | Seen as a barrier |
---|---|---|
Count (%) | Count (%) | |
Available resources (e.g., personnel, material) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (2.4%) |
Capacity and established methods for engagement | 3 (3.6%) | 1 (1.2%) |
Clear expectations and responsibilities | 3 (3.6%) | 1 (1.2%) |
Contact with knowledge users | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (1.2%) |
Differing values | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Establishment of partnership early in the research process | 7 (8.3%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Establishment of unbiased consensus | 1 (1.2%) | 2 (2.4%) |
Forums for interaction | 6 (7.1%) | 1 (1.2%) |
Geographic distance | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.2%) |
Ongoing collaboration with partners | 4 (4.8%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Knowledge user research skills | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (1.2%) |
Knowledge user topic expertise/awareness |
14 (16.7%)
| 5 (6.0%) |
Relationship with knowledge users | 2 (2.4%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Timing and opportunity | 3 (3.6%) |
9 (10.7%)
|
Training/mentoring of researchers and knowledge users | 2 (2.4%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Willingness to participate | 1 (1.2%) | 2 (2.4%) |