Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews

@article{Pollock2019DevelopmentOT,
  title={Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews},
  author={Alex Pollock and Pauline Campbell and Caroline Struthers and Anneliese J Synnot and Jack S. Nunn and Sophie J Hill and Heather Goodare and Jacqui H Morris and Chris Watts and Richard Morley},
  journal={Journal of Health Services Research \& Policy},
  year={2019},
  volume={24},
  pages={245 - 255}
}
Objectives Involvement of patients, health professionals, and the wider public (‘stakeholders’) is seen to be beneficial to the quality, relevance and impact of research and may enhance the usefulness and uptake of systematic reviews. However, there is a lack of evidence and resources to guide researchers in how to actively involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. In this paper, we report the development of the ACTIVE framework to describe how stakeholders are involved in systematic reviews… Expand
Lost in reviews: Looking for the involvement of stakeholders, patients, public and other non-researcher contributors in realist reviews.
TLDR
A need for the realist review community to develop guidance to support researchers in their future collaboration with contributors, including patients and the public is indicated. Expand
Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.
TLDR
This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written, and introduces a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. Expand
Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation
TLDR
The 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. Expand
Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review
TLDR
The findings add to the evidence that searching for coproduced research is difficult because of the diversity of terms used to describe patient and public partners, and the lack of consistent, detailed reporting about PPI. Expand
Public and patient involvement (PPI) in health policy decisionmaking on the health system-level: protocol for a systematic scoping review
TLDR
This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the different methods used for PPI in health system decisionmaking and the reported outcomes and contextual factors for these methods. Expand
Valuing All Voices: refining a trauma-informed, intersectional and critical reflexive framework for patient engagement in health research using a qualitative descriptive approach
TLDR
The revised Valuing All Voices Framework provides guidance for teams looking to employ trauma-informed approaches, intersectional analysis, and critical reflexive practice in the co-development of meaningful, inclusive, and safe engagement strategies. Expand
Developing a Framework for Public Involvement in Mathematical and Economic Modelling: Bringing New Dynamism to Vaccination Policy Recommendations
TLDR
The MEMVIE Framework is the first attempt to identify potential points of collaborative public contribution to modelling, but it requires further evaluation and refinement that is undertaking in a subsequent study. Expand
Quantitative Evidence Synthesis Methods for the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences for Clinical and Economic Decision Making: A Review and Taxonomy of Simplifying Assumptions
TLDR
This paper critically explores the methods for quantitative evidence synthesis of the effectiveness of sequential treatment options within a health technology assessment (HTA) or similar process and covers methods for developing summary estimates of clinical effectiveness or the clinical inputs for the cost-effectiveness assessment. Expand
Goal adjustment by people living with long-term conditions: A scoping review of literature published from January 2007 to June 2018.
TLDR
This review provides original and significant insights into goal adjustment definitions, theoretical underpinnings and association with recovery and effective interventions to support goal adjustment, disengagement and reengagement are lacking. Expand
Patient partners’ perspectives of meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews: A patient‐oriented rapid review
TLDR
Fostering partnerships through team development is foundational for meaningful engagement in synthesis reviews, which requires sensitively balancing of various needs (eg overburdening with contributions). Expand
...
1
2
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 45 REFERENCES
Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review
TLDR
Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic review. Expand
Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects
TLDR
This review will be used to produce training resources aimed at helping researchers to improve ways of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews, and create a map of the evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic Reviews. Expand
Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts
TLDR
There is a great interest in rehabilitation to engage stakeholders in the research process, however, further evidence is needed to identify effective strategies for meaningful stakeholder engagement that leads to more useful research that positively impacts practice. Expand
Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice.
TLDR
Various stakeholder engagement opportunities that are employed throughout the stages of conducting a systematic review to increase knowledge utilization within these audiences are described and discussed. Expand
Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions
TLDR
This systematic review reveals that strategies to improve the uptake of evidence from reviews and meta-analyses will need to overcome a wide variety of obstacles and can inform future approaches to enhancing systematic review uptake. Expand
Public involvement at the design stage of primary health research: a narrative review of case examples.
TLDR
To review published examples of public involvement in research design, the contributions made by members of the public are synthesised, as well as the identified barriers, tensions and facilitating strategies. Expand
How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research
TLDR
How researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding is discussed and some opportunities and pitfalls are considered. Expand
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
This paper focuses on scoping studies, an approach to reviewing the literature which to date has received little attention in the research methods literature. We distinguish between different typesExpand
A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient and Public Involvement on Service Users, Researchers and Communities
TLDR
This is the first international systematic review to focus on the impact of PPI on the people involved in the process, highlighting the importance of optimising the context and processes of involvement, so creating the potential for PPI to impact positively on the research itself. Expand
A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane
TLDR
There was evidence of highly variable levels and types of consumer involvement within and beyond Cochrane, but limited evidence for what makes the most effective methods and levels of involving consumers in review production. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...