Defining the benefits and challenges of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews

References

• Effective Health Care Program: Stakeholder Guide 2014. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; [updated February 2014]. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/stakeholderguide/stakeholdr.pdf. Accessed March, 1 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: The PCORI perspective. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1636–1640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2009. Available from: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2009/ComparativeEffectivenessResearchPriorities/CER%20report%20brief%2008-13-09.ashx. Accessed March 1, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis P, Slaughter-Mason S, Thielke A, et al. PCORI Expert Interviews Project: Final Report. Center for Evidence-based Policy, Oregon Health and Science University; 2012. Available from: http://pcori.org/assets/pdfs/Expert%20Interviews%20Part%201.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Guise J-M, O’Haire C, McPheeters M, et al. A practice-based tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: a synthesis of current practices. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2013;66(6):666–674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-Marx S, Bayliss H. The PIRICOM Study: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualisation, Measurement, Impact and Outcomes of Patients and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research. Royal College of Nursing; The University of Warwick; 2010. Available from: http://www.ukcrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Piricom+Review+Final+2010.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Cottrell E, Whitlock E, Kato E, et al. Defining the Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement in Systematic Reviews. Research White Paper. [Prepared by the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No 290-2012-00004-C]; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. Available from: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/581/1883/stakeholder-engagement-benefits-report-140318.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 3: CD004563 2006. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004563.pub2/abstract. Accessed March 1, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health expectations. 2012;17(5):637–650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keown K, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: Knowledge transfer for policy and practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2008; 28(2):67–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR. How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Affairs. 2010;29(10):1834–1841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domecq Garces JP, Prutsky Lopez GJ, Wang Z, et al. Eliciting Patient Perspective in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: A Meta Narrative Systematic Review. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; 2012. Available from: http://www.pcori.org/assets/Eliciting-Patient-Perspective-in-Patient-Centered-Outcomes-Research-A-Meta-Narrative-Systematic-Review.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expectations. 2012;16(4):323–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Public Involvement in Systematic Reviews: Supplement to the Briefing Notes for Researchers. INVOLVE; National Institute for Health Research; National Health Service; 2012. Available from: http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/INVOLVEPublicInvolvementSystematicReviews2012.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Wright D, Foster C, Amir Z, Elliott J, Wilson R. Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy. 2010;13(4):359–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boote J, Barber R, Cooper C. Principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research: results of a Delphi study and subgroup analysis. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2006;75(3):280–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Involving the public in systematic reviews: a narrative review of organisational approaches and eight case examples. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2012;1(5):409–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vale CL, Thompson LC, Murphy C, Forcat S, Hanley B. Involvement of consumers in studies run by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit: results of a survey. Trials. 2012;13(9):1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach (Structured abstract). Health Technology Assessment Database. 2004;8(15):1–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber R, Boote JD, Parry GD, Cooper CL, Yeeles P, Cook S. Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy. 2012;15(3):229–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2012;1(2):181–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hailey D, Werko S, Bakri R, et al. Involvement of Consumers in Health Technology Assessment Activities by Inahta Agencies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2012;29(1):79–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horey D. Consumer Involvement in the Cochrane Collaboration. Background Paper. 2010. Available from: http://consumers.cochrane.org/sites/consumers.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Consumer%20Involvement%20in%20the%20Cochrane%20Collaboration%20Background%20paper.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Wale J, Colombo C, Belizan M, Nadel J. International health consumers in the Cochrane Collaboration: fifteen years on. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management. 2010;33(3):182–189.
   Google Scholar
• Hailey D. Consumer Involvement in Health Technology Assessment. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2005. Available from: http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA-FR21.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Gagnon M-P, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary Ds, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2011;27(1):31–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar