Setting research priorities in tobacco control: a stakeholder engagement project

Abstract

Background and AimsThe Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) conducts systematic reviews of the evidence for tobacco cessation and prevention interventions. In 2016 TAG conducted a priority‐setting, stakeholder engagement project to identify where further research is needed in the areas of tobacco control and smoking cessation.DesignThe project comprised two surveys and a workshop. A range of stakeholders participated, including members of the public (smokers and ex‐smokers), clinicians, researchers, research funders, health‐care commissioners and public health organizations. The first survey phase identified unanswered research questions in the field of tobacco control. The second phase asked participants to rank these, with overall rankings calculated by combining scores across participants. The workshop allowed attendees to discuss prioritization of topics and questions in more depth. Workshop discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically, and a final voting activity at the close of the workshop allowed participants to choose topics to prioritize and to de‐prioritize.FindingsA total of 304 stakeholders (researchers, health professionals, smokers and ex‐smokers, guideline developers, research funders and policymakers, representing 28 countries) identified 183 unanswered research questions. These were categorized into 15 research categories. A total of 175 participants prioritized categories and questions in the second survey phase, with ‘electronic cigarettes’; ‘addressing inequalities’; and ‘mental health and other substance abuse’ prioritized as the top three categories. Forty‐three stakeholders attended the workshop and discussed reasons for and against category prioritization. Prioritized research categories largely mirrored those in the survey stage, although ‘treatment delivery’ also emerged as a key category. Five cross‐cutting themes emerged: efficacy; relative efficacy; cost effectiveness; addressing inequalities; and different types of evidence.ConclusionsThere are many unanswered questions in the field of tobacco control. Stakeholders highlighted electronic cigarettes, addressing inequalities and mental health and other substance abuse as key areas for further research, and efficacy, relative efficacy, cost‐effectiveness and use of non‐randomized studies as important themes cutting across research areas. Future prioritization work would benefit from targeting non‐US and non‐UK stakeholders explicitly and from examining where priorities may differ based on stakeholder group.

Cochrane acute respiratory infections group's stakeholder engagement project identified systematic review priority areas

“…However, this is not uncommon in multi-round prioritisation projects. [7,12] Nevertheless, the 53% response rate in round 2, is 10% lower than response rates in similar two-round survey prioritisation exercises conducted by other Cochrane groups [5,7] and may have exaggerated the biases noted above.…”

“…Prioritisation projects relying solely on respondents to write-in their proposed topics have been conducted, [7] or are currently in progress, [14] however, this approach has previously been found to yield a very large number of unanswerable questions. For example, a similar exercise by the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group found that of the 258 questions suggested by the respondents, 183 (or 71%) were unanswerable.…”

“…For example, a similar exercise by the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group found that of the 258 questions suggested by the respondents, 183 (or 71%) were unanswerable. [7] Nevertheless, a wide variety of approaches for prioritising systematic review topics have been successful both within Cochrane and in other contexts, and no single approach is preferred. [15,16]…”

“…Many CRGs have therefore undertaken prioritisation exercises, using a variety of methods [1], including: online surveys; Delphi panels; workshops; evidence mapping; stakeholder partnerships; consultations with partner organisations, experts and other stakeholders; scoping exercises; searches of trial registries; horizon scanning; interviews with policy-and decision-makers; and combinations of these. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] We report here the results of Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's prioritisation project, which consisted of two phases. Phase 1 was an analysis of the gap between existing RCT evidence and existing Cochrane Systematic Reviews [11].…”

Research priorities in single-ventricle heart conditions: a United Kingdom national study

“…[15] Submitted questions were screened by at least two reviewers (NED, VMS, CJB, AJP) to remove duplicates and any that fell outside the scope of the study. The remaining questions were rephrased for clarity and consistency of terminology, as required, and classified according to the current literature as: unanswered by current research; already answered by published research; or unable to be answered by scientific research.…”