Search

Abstract Background Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses Methods Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. Consensus. The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. Dissemination. We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. Conclusion Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Abstract Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.

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.

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify, describe, and summarize existing guidance and methods for multistakeholder engagement throughout the health guideline development process.

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The overall objective of this study is to gather and summarize the existing literature on conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in guideline development.

Наукова стаття являє собою оригінальне дослідження стану забезпечення фінансової стійкості України в умовах воєнних подій, а також процесу трансформації інструментів її підтримки як критично важливого кроку в контексті гарантування безперебійності функціонування фінансового сектору держави. В ході дослідження було детерміновано сутність фінансової стійкості України та її залежність від воєнних подій. Авторами узагальнено інструменти, що необхідно використовувати на даному етапі в контексті підтримки фінансової стійкості, а також визначено важливість їх зміни відповідно до новоутворених обставин. Керуючись складністю побудови фінансової стійкості як показника, автори узагальнили необхідність трансформації практики забезпечення кожного із векторів державної політики, зокрема податкової, бюджетної, монетарної та ін. Доведено, що їх комплексна оцінка ефективності є важливою на шляху досягнення фінансово стійкого положення України як під час війни, так і на етапі пост-воєнного відновлення економіки.

Abstract Background Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Methods This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Discussion We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Abstract Background WHO identifies pregnant women to be at increased risk for severe outcomes from influenza virus infections and recommends that they be prioritized for influenza vaccination. The evidence supporting this, however, is inconsistent. Ecologic studies in particular suggest more severe outcomes from influenza infection during pregnancy than studies based on individual patient data. Individual studies however may be underpowered and, as reported in a previous systematic review, confounding factors could not be adjusted for. We therefore conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to assess the risk for severe outcomes of influenza infection in pregnant women while adjusting for other prognostic factors. Methods We contacted authors of studies included in a recently published systematic review. We pooled the individual participant data of women of reproductive age and laboratory confirmation of influenza virus infection. We used a generalized linear mixed model and reported odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results A total of 33 datasets with data on 186,656 individuals were available, including 36,498 eligible women of reproductive age and known pregnancy status. In the multivariable model, pregnancy was associated with a 7 times higher risk of hospital admission (OR 6.80, 95%CI 6.02–7.68), among patients receiving medical care as in- or outpatients, pregnancy was associated with a lower risk of admission to intensive care units (ICU; OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.48–0.69), and was not significantly associated with death (OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.75–1.34). Conclusions Our study found a higher risk of influenza associated hospitalization among pregnant women as compared to non-pregnant women. We did not find a higher mortality rate or higher likelihood of ICU admission among pregnant women who sought medical care. However, this study did not address whether a true community based cohort of pregnant women is at higher risk of influenza associated complications.

У статті розглянуто відносини власності в контексті їх місця і ролі в економіці України. Визначено власність, як стержень економічної системи, безпосередньо впливає на процеси в ринковій економіці України. Зазначено, що відносини власності виникають внаслідок відносин між людьми, групами людей, державою тощо з приводу з приводу привласнення об’єктів власності й перш за все засобів виробництва та його результатів. Висвітлено так звану тріаду власності яка визначається трьома основними правочинностями – володіння, користування і розпорядження. Охарактеризовано сутність поняття «власність» з економічної та юридичної точки зору. Визначено власність як складну і багатогранну категорію. Висвітлено основні типи і форми власності в економіці України. Зазначено, що сьогодні в Україні відбуваються істотні перетворення у відносинах власності, а для стабільності економічної системи суспільства повинні бути присутні всі типи, види та форми власності.

BackgroundThere is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals.MethodWe conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no).ResultsOf the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening.ConclusionsMost people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.

BackgroundThere is a heightened interest in plant‐based diets for cardiovascular disease prevention. Although plant protein is thought to mediate such prevention through modifying blood lipids, the effect of plant protein in specific substitution for animal protein on blood lipids remains unclear. To assess the effect of this substitution on established lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Methods and ResultsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Registry were searched through September 9, 2017. We included randomized controlled trials of ≥3 weeks comparing the effect of plant protein in substitution for animal protein on low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I2 statistic). The overall quality (certainty) of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. One‐hundred twelve randomized controlled trials met the eligibility criteria. Plant protein in substitution for animal protein decreased low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.16 mmol/L (95% confidence interval, −0.20 to −0.12 mmol/L; P

OBJECTIVE:Vitamin D supplementation may be a simple preventive measure against respiratory tract infections (RTIs) but evidence from randomized controlled trials is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically summarize results from interventions studying the protective effect of vitamin D supplementation on clinical and laboratory confirmed RTIs in healthy adults and children. METHODS:Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were screened from inception until present (last updated in January 2016) completed by a search of the grey literature, clinical trial registers and conference abstracts. We included randomized trials comparing vitamin D versus placebo or no treatment. Two independent reviewers were responsible for study selection and data extraction. Cochrane's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were used for quality assessment. Estimates were pooled with random-effects models. Heterogeneity was explored by sub-group and meta-regression analyses. RESULTS:Of 2627 original hits, 15 trials including 7053 individuals were ultimately eligible. All used oral cholecalciferol. We found a 6% risk reduction with vitamin D3 supplementation on clinical RTIs, but the result was not statistically significant (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). Heterogeneity was large (I-square 57%) and overall study quality was low. There were too few studies to reliably assess a potential risk reduction of laboratory confirmed RTI. Evidence was insufficient to demonstrate an association between vitamin D supplementation and risk of clinical RTI in sub-groups with vitamin D deficiency. CONCLUSIONS:In previously healthy individuals vitamin D supplementation does not reduce the risk of clinical RTIs. However, this conclusion is based on a meta-analysis where the included studies differed with respect to population, baseline vitamin D levels and study length. This needs to be considered when interpreting the results. Future trials should focus on vitamin D deficient individuals and apply more objective and standardized outcome measurements.