An International Needs Assessment Survey of Guideline Developers Demonstrates Variability in Resources and Challenges to Collaboration between Organizations

Sultan, Shahnaz; Siedler, Madelin R.; Ogunremi, Toju; Dahm, Philipp; Fatheree, Lisa A.; Getchius, Thomas S.D.; Ginex, Pamela; Jakhmola, Priya; McFarlane, Emma; Murad, Mohammad Hassan; Smolkin, Robyn L Temple; Amer, Yasser Sami; Alam, Murad; Kang, Bianca Y.; Falck‐Ytter, Yngve; Mustafa, Reem A.

doi:10.1007/s11606-021-07112-w

Cited by 11 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Knowledge user5 7 28–31 and Delphi12 32–35 surveys have been successfully used to inform the development of other types of tools, systematic reviews and guidelines. Online surveys have been used to evaluate the reliability and face validity of tools, and the use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool in practice 25.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool)

Lunny

Veroniki

Hutton

et al. 2022

BMJ EBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNetwork meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly used in guideline development and other aspects of evidence-based decision-making. We aimed to develop a risk of bias (RoB) tool to assess NMAs (RoB NMA tool). An international steering committee recommended that the RoB NMA tool to be used in combination with the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool (i.e. because it was designed to assess biases only) or other similar quality appraisal tools (eg, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 [AMSTAR 2]) to assess quality of systematic reviews. The RoB NMA tool will assess NMA biases and limitations regarding how the analysis was planned, data were analysed and results were presented, including the way in which the evidence was assembled and interpreted.ObjectivesConduct (a) a Delphi process to determine expert opinion on an item’s inclusion and (b) a knowledge user survey to widen its impact.DesignCross-sectional survey and Delphi process.MethodsDelphi panellists were asked to rate whether items should be included. All agreed-upon item were included in a second round of the survey (defined as 70% agreement). We surveyed knowledge users’ views and preferences about the importance, utility and willingness to use the RoB NMA tool to evaluate evidence in practice and in policymaking. We included 12 closed and 10 open-ended questions, and we followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks.Results22 items were entered into a Delphi survey of which 28 respondents completed round 1, and 22 completed round 2. Seven items did not reach consensus in round 2. A total of 298 knowledge users participated in the survey (14% respondent rate). 75% indicated that their organisation produced NMAs, and 78% showed high interest in the tool, especially if they had received adequate training (84%). Most knowledge users and Delphi panellists preferred a tool to assess both bias in individual NMA results and authors’ conclusions. Response bias in our sample is a major limitation as knowledge users working in high-income countries were more represented. One of the limitations of the Delphi process is that it depends on the purposive selection of experts and their availability, thus limiting the variability in perspectives and scientific disciplines.ConclusionsThis Delphi process and knowledge user survey informs the development of the RoB NMA tool.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool)

Lunny

Veroniki

Hutton

et al. 2022

BMJ EBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The cooperative structure should focus on knowledge sharing to produce relevant and beneficial policies. Leaders in cooperating organizations should be mindful of conflicts of interests, requiring participants to disclose conflicts initially and throughout the collaborative process (Sultan et al, 2021) Furthermore, efforts should be made to create a common working structure and authorship agreements to expedite the development of guidelines and policies (Sultan et al, 2021). Although we recognize the inherent danger of this cooperative structure, we feel the benefit of collaboration outweighs the risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatism as a philosophical foundation to integrate education, practice, research and policy across the nursing profession

Dolan

Nowell

McCaffrey

2022

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Education, practice, research and policy are all facets of the nursing profession; however they often exist in silos, operating independently of each other. The nursing profession has grappled with the theory practice gap for decades (Greenway et al., 2019).Knowledge developed and learned in the ivory tower of university nursing programs globally does not always translate to real-life problems at the bedside (Leach & Tucker, 2018). Frontline nurses find it difficult to connect published research findings to benefits in practice (Rahmayanti et al., 2020), and it has been argued that research initiatives need to be more tightly aligned to what is happening at

show abstract

“…We aimed to engage decision makers early on in the tool development process through a survey of their opinions around SR use, barriers to use, and how they compare multiple SRs on the same topic. Surveys of decision makers have successfully informed the development of new methods, tools and guidelines [52][53][54][55][56][57]. The importance of decision maker engagement in research is increasingly recognised [58] and several reviews indicate that the interaction between researchers and decision makers is a key factor associated with the impact of a new method or tool [54,56,[59][60][61][62].…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision makers find it difficult to compare and select similar systematic reviews based on quality, methods and results: a cross-sectional survey

Lunny

Whitelaw

Chi³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision makers are often faced with the challenge of comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We surveyed individuals in the healthcare field to understand what criteria they use to compare and select one or more SRs from multiple on the same topic. Methods We developed a survey with 21 open and closed questions. We disseminated it through social media and professional networks. Results Of the 684 respondents, 25% were health practitioners, 9% policymakers, 39% researchers, and 13% were students. Policymakers, practitioners and researchers frequently sought out SRs (98.1%) as a source of evidence to inform decision making. They frequently (97.7%) found more than one SR on a given topic of interest to them. Half (50%) struggled to choose the most valid and trustworthy SR amongst multiple. These difficulties related to lack of time (55.2%), insufficient skills/ experience in quality appraisal (27.7%), and difficulty comparing different SRs (54.3%). Respondents compared SRs based on: relevance to their question of interest; its methodological quality, and recency of SR search date. Conclusions The exponential growth in the number of SRs leads to duplication of research on similar questions and compounds the problem of identifying which evidence is of the highest quality for decision makers. Failure to critically appraise and choose the highest quality SRs means that practice and policy decisions may not reflect the best evidence, the implementation of better intervention strategies is delayed, and patients may unduly suffer.

show abstract

An International Needs Assessment Survey of Guideline Developers Demonstrates Variability in Resources and Challenges to Collaboration between Organizations

Cited by 11 publications

References 20 publications

Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool)

Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool)

Pragmatism as a philosophical foundation to integrate education, practice, research and policy across the nursing profession

Decision makers find it difficult to compare and select similar systematic reviews based on quality, methods and results: a cross-sectional survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About