0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Addressing barriers to global multidisciplinary stakeholder inclusivity: Lessons from global orofacial cleft research priority setting

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Inclusivity in research priority setting is fundamental to capturing the opinion of all stakeholders in a research area. Globally, experienced healthcare workers often have deep insights that could impactfully shape future research, and a lack of their involvement in formal research and publications could mean that their voices are insufficiently represented. We aimed to modify the well-established Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology to address barriers to inclusivity, which are particularly relevant in healthcare that requires highly multidisciplinary care.

          Methods

          This global research priority-setting exercise for orofacial clefts adapted the CHNRI methodology to include research experts, clinicians from multiple disciplines, and non-technical stakeholders (i.e. patients and parents and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)) on a global basis. A multidisciplinary international steering group proposed and discussed methodological changes to improve inclusivity, including survey edits, subgroups for research questions, a demographics section, translation in French and Spanish, phrasing adaptation, and alternative dissemination techniques.

          Results

          We received 412 responses and 1420 questions, spanning 78 different countries and 18 different specialties/groups. Challenges remain to improve representation of all groups, with the vast majority of answers (30%) being from surgeons and a comparatively small proportion from patient/parent groups (9%). This also includes managing responses in three languages, effective dissemination, and responses that were not worded as research questions.

          Conclusions

          This is one of the first CHNRI exercises to involve patients and parents, clinicians, and researchers in its first question submission stage, and the first ever to do so on a global scale. We describe our approach to addressing inclusivity challenges and report related demographic data to serve as a benchmark upon which we hope future CHNRI exercises will improve.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review

          Background To identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients’ experiences of being engaged. Results Forty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign—discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)—whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients’ experiences of the engagement process (n = 12; 25%). While most experiences were positive—increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent—some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made. Conclusions Patient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients’ experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care. Registration N/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Research priorities to reduce the global burden of dementia by 2025.

            At the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia in March, 2015, 160 delegates, including representatives from 80 WHO Member States and four UN agencies, agreed on a call for action to reduce the global burden of dementia by fostering a collective effort to advance research. To drive this effort, we completed a globally representative research prioritisation exercise using an adapted version of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method. We elicited 863 research questions from 201 participants and consolidated these questions into 59 thematic research avenues, which were scored anonymously by 162 researchers and stakeholders from 39 countries according to five criteria. Six of the top ten research priorities were focused on prevention, identification, and reduction of dementia risk, and on delivery and quality of care for people with dementia and their carers. Other priorities related to diagnosis, biomarkers, treatment development, basic research into disease mechanisms, and public awareness and understanding of dementia. Research priorities identified by this systematic international process should be mapped onto the global dementia research landscape to identify crucial gaps and inform and motivate policy makers, funders, and researchers to support and conduct research to reduce the global burden of dementia. Efforts are needed by all stakeholders, including WHO, WHO Member States, and civil society, to continuously monitor research investments and progress, through international platforms such as a Global Dementia Observatory. With established research priorities, an opportunity now exists to translate the call for action into a global dementia action plan to reduce the global burden of dementia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Setting priorities in global child health research investments: guidelines for implementation of CHNRI method.

              This article provides detailed guidelines for the implementation of systematic method for setting priorities in health research investments that was recently developed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI). The target audience for the proposed method are international agencies, large research funding donors, and national governments and policy-makers. The process has the following steps: (i) selecting the managers of the process; (ii) specifying the context and risk management preferences; (iii) discussing criteria for setting health research priorities; (iv) choosing a limited set of the most useful and important criteria; (v) developing means to assess the likelihood that proposed health research options will satisfy the selected criteria; (vi) systematic listing of a large number of proposed health research options; (vii) pre-scoring check of all competing health research options; (viii) scoring of health research options using the chosen set of criteria; (ix) calculating intermediate scores for each health research option; (x) obtaining further input from the stakeholders; (xi) adjusting intermediate scores taking into account the values of stakeholders; (xii) calculating overall priority scores and assigning ranks; (xiii) performing an analysis of agreement between the scorers; (xiv) linking computed research priority scores with investment decisions; (xv) feedback and revision. The CHNRI method is a flexible process that enables prioritizing health research investments at any level: institutional, regional, national, international, or global.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Glob Health
                J Glob Health
                JGH
                Journal of Global Health
                International Society of Global Health
                2047-2978
                2047-2986
                13 December 2024
                2024
                : 14
                : 04261
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [2 ]The London Clinic, London, UK
                [3 ]Smile Train, New York, USA
                [4 ]Centre for Outcomes and Experience Research in Children’s Health, Illness and Disability (ORCHID), Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust and Speech@Home, London, UK
                [5 ]Centre for Appearance Research, University of West England Bristol, Bristol, UK
                [6 ]European Cleft Organisation, Rijswijk, The Netherlands
                [7 ]Fundacion Grantz, Santiago de Chile, Chile
                [8 ]Cleft surgeon, Birmingham, UK
                [9 ]The Nairobi Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya
                [10 ]Cleft Lip and Palate Program Yekatit 12 Hospital Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
                [11 ]Global Cleft Research Programme, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to:
Niki Kouvroukoglou
University of Edinburgh
5–7 Little France Road, Edinburgh BioQuarter – Gate 3, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX
UK
 v1nkouvr@ 123456ed.ac.uk 
Felicity Vidya Mehendale
University of Edinburgh
5–7 Little France Road, Edinburgh BioQuarter – Gate 3, Edinburgh, EH16 4UX
UK
 felicity.mehendale@ 123456ed.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2556-0641
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1135-9943
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8859-2968
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2488-5881
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1285-691X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4712-2860
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6164-4083
                Article
                jogh-14-04261
                10.7189/jogh.14.04261
                11636950
                39666584
                e8d72802-6af5-4fd4-84ce-671757e78bbc
                Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 30, Pages: 12
                Categories
                Articles

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article