Identifying gaps for research prioritisation: Global burden of external causes of injury as reflected in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Karimkhani, Chanté; Trikha, Ritika; Aksut, Baran; Jones, Trevor; Boyers, Lindsay N.; Schlichte, Megan J.; Pederson, Hannah; Okland, Tyler S.; DiGuiseppi, Carolyn; Nasser, Mona; Naghavi, Mohsen; Vos, Theo; Yoong, Sze Lin; Wolfenden, Luke; Murray, Christopher J L; Dellavalle, Robert P.

doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.12.019

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While self-harm and suicide deaths are recognised as leading causes of disease burden worldwide (G.B.D. DALYs and HALE Collaborators, 2017; Karimkhani et al, 2016;Naghavi, 2019), there is limited evidence for the specific effects of suicidal ideation on Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). Furthermore, the factors associated with decrements in HRQoL for people experiencing suicidal thoughts are poorly understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-reported disability and quality of life in an online Australian community sample with suicidal thoughts

Spijker

Batterham

Calear

et al. 2020

Journal of Affective Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Limited research has been conducted to quantify the level of disability and health related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with suicidal thoughts and behaviour. The aims of the current study were to (1) describe levels of disability and HRQoL in an Australian sample of adults with suicidal ideation, (2) examine the effect of zero, one, or more than one previous suicide attempt on disability and HRQoL, and (3) describe the demographic and clinical characteristics associated with disability and HRQoL. Method: Data for the current study is drawn from the baseline assessment of the Healthy Thinking trial that evaluated the effectiveness of an online self-help program for suicidal thoughts in an Australian adult community sample (n = 418). Measures of disability, quality of life, clinical symptoms, suicidality and demographic variables were included. Results: The mean disability score for the overall sample was 19.2 (SD = =8.9), while the mean perceived physical health score was 40.7 (SD = =6.5) and the mean perceived mental health score was 36.1 (SD = =5.9). Higher levels of disability and lower levels of perceived physical health were associated with multiple suicide attempts compared to one or no history of suicide attempt. Limitations: Limitations included the limited generalisability of results, the use of self-report to assess suicide attempts, and the use of cross-sectional data. Conclusion: Suicidal thoughts and behaviours are associated with high levels disability and low levels of perceived physical and mental health. Early intervention programs are needed to reduce the high levels of burden associated with suicidality. Only a few studies have examined the association between

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-reported disability and quality of life in an online Australian community sample with suicidal thoughts

Spijker

Batterham

Calear

et al. 2020

Journal of Affective Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…not a critical or systematic review; Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Knight et al ( 2014 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Johnston et al ( 2016 ) Ineligible study design, i.e. not a critical or systematic review; Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Jones and Geneau ( 2012 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Karimkhani et al ( 2016 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Kong et al ( 2019 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Kühne et al ( 2021 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Morton et al ( 2012 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Nicolau et al ( 2012 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Okland et al ( 2017 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Oncology Nursing Forum ( 2019 ) Ineligible study design, i.e. not a critical or systematic review Pozzar and Berry ( 2017 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Pratt ( 2020 ) Ineligible study design, i.e.…”

Section: Appendix A: Search Strategy and Summary Of Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas. Main body We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area. Conclusion Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

show abstract

“…Cochrane systematic reviews undergo exhaustive editorial processing, are more methodologically rigorous, and are updated more frequently than non-Cochrane reviews and paper-based journals ( 7 , 8 ). Prior studies have evaluated the association between broad categories of disease burden with randomized trials and Cochrane systematic reviews ( 9 - 12 ). This study will assess whether the CDSR representation of ten MHUDs corresponds to GBD 2010 disability estimates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research prioritization of men’s health and urologic diseases

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We sought to determine whether disease representation in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflects disease burden, measured by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs).Materials and Methods Two investigators performed independent assessment of ten men’s health and urologic diseases (MHUDs) in CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation, which were compared with percentage of total 2010 DALYs for the ten conditions. Data were analyzed for correlation using Spearman rank analysis.Results Nine of ten MHUDs were represented by at least one CDSR review. There was a poor and statistically insignificant positive correlation between CDSR representation and disease burden (rho = 0.42, p = 0.23). CDSR representation was aligned with disease burden for three conditions, greater than disease burden for one condition, and less than disease burden for six conditions.Conclusions These results yield high-quality estimates to inform future research prioritization for MHUDs. While prioritization processes are complex and multi-faceted, disease burden should be strongly considered. Awareness of research priority setting has the potential to minimize research disparities on a global scale.

show abstract

Identifying gaps for research prioritisation: Global burden of external causes of injury as reflected in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Self-reported disability and quality of life in an online Australian community sample with suicidal thoughts

Self-reported disability and quality of life in an online Australian community sample with suicidal thoughts

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

Research prioritization of men’s health and urologic diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About