Literature DB >> 23477991

An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews.

Mona Nasser1, Erin Ueffing, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and pilot an equity lens that could help researchers in developing a more equity-oriented approach toward priority setting and agenda setting in systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We developed an equity lens to guide the development and evaluation of a prioritization process and evaluate its outcomes based on the information derived from a discussion workshop and a comparison with the existing literature on the topic. We piloted the process section of the equity lens across the 13 structured priority-setting approaches in the Cochrane Collaboration.
RESULTS: We devised an equity lens with two checklists: one to guide the process of priority setting (nine questions) and the other to evaluate the outcomes of priority setting (eight questions). Of the nine questions, seven questions were partially addressed by at least one of the prioritization projects. Two questions were not considered in any of them. The prioritization projects did not report sufficient outcome data, thus we could not explore the eight question on evaluating outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Currently, there are few strategies in the Cochrane Collaboration that explicitly address the research priorities of individuals from different sociodemographic groups. The equity lens for priority setting and agenda setting can help project teams to develop a more equity-oriented approach to set a research agenda and/or prioritize research topics. However, further studies are needed to evaluate its impact on the prioritization process.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23477991     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.11.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  15 in total

1.  Perspective: Consideration of Values When Setting Priorities in Nutrition Research: Guidance for Transparency.

Authors:  Dana Hawwash; Wim Pinxten; Noémie Aubert Bonn; Roosmarijn Verstraeten; Patrick Kolsteren; Carl Lachat
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 8.701

2.  Identifying gaps in research prioritization: The global burden of neglected tropical diseases as reflected in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Soumyadeep Bhaumik; Chante Karimkhani; Christopher A Czaja; Hywel C Williams; Monica Rani; Mona Nasser; Lindsay N Boyers; Sergei Dmitruk; Robert P Dellavalle
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec

Review 3.  Consideration of health inequalities in systematic reviews: a mapping review of guidance.

Authors:  Michelle Maden
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-28

4.  Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas.

Authors:  Dyon Hoekstra; Margot Mütsch; Christina Kien; Ansgar Gerhardus; Stefan K Lhachimi
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review.

Authors:  Lesley Uttley; Paul Montgomery
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-01

6.  Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.

Authors:  Anneliese Synnot; Peter Bragge; Dianne Lowe; Jack S Nunn; Molly O'Sullivan; Lidia Horvat; Allison Tong; Debra Kay; Davina Ghersi; Steve McDonald; Naomi Poole; Noni Bourke; Natasha Lannin; Danny Vadasz; Sandy Oliver; Karen Carey; Sophie J Hill
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Considering health equity when moving from evidence-based guideline recommendations to implementation: a case study from an upper-middle income country on the GRADE approach.

Authors:  Javier Eslava-Schmalbach; Paola Mosquera; Juan Pablo Alzate; Kevin Pottie; Vivian Welch; Elie A Akl; Janet Jull; Eddy Lang; Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Rachel Morton; Lehana Thabane; Bev Shea; Airton T Stein; Jasvinder Singh; Ivan D Florez; Gordon Guyatt; Holger Schünemann; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  Health Policy Plan       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 3.344

8.  Harnessing inter-disciplinary collaboration to improve emergency care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): results of research prioritisation setting exercise.

Authors:  Fiona E Lecky; Teri Reynolds; Olubukola Otesile; Sara Hollis; Janette Turner; Gordon Fuller; Ian Sammy; Jean Williams-Johnson; Heike Geduld; Andrea G Tenner; Simone French; Ishtar Govia; Julie Balen; Steve Goodacre; Sujan B Marahatta; Shaheem DeVries; Hendry R Sawe; Mohamed El-Shinawi; Juma Mfinanga; Andrés M Rubiano; Henda Chebbi; Sang Do Shin; Jose Maria E Ferrer; Mashyaneh Haddadi; Tsion Firew; Kathryn Taubert; Andrew Lee; Pauline Convocar; Sabariah Jamaluddin; Shahzmah Kotecha; Emad Abu Yaqeen; Katie Wells; Lee Wallis
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2020-08-31

9.  Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group's systematic review priority-setting project.

Authors:  Anneliese Synnot; Allison Tong; Rebecca Ryan; Sophie Hill
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2020-09-02

10.  Prioritising gender, equity, and human rights in a GRADE-based framework to inform future research on self care for sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Authors:  Nandi Siegfried; Manjulaa Narasimhan; Carmen H Logie; Rebekah Thomas; Laura Ferguson; Kevin Moody; Michelle Remme
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2020-03-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.