Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review: using structured methods to enhance the clinical relevance, usefulness and usability of a systematic review update

Authors: Alex Pollock, Pauline Campbell, Gillian Baer, Pei Ling Choo, Jacqui Morris, Anne Forster

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This paper describes the structured methods used to involve patients, carers and health professionals in an update of a Cochrane systematic review relating to physiotherapy after stroke and explores the perceived impact of involvement.

Methods

We sought funding and ethical approval for our user involvement. We recruited a stakeholder group comprising stroke survivors, carers, physiotherapists and educators and held three pre-planned meetings during the course of updating a Cochrane systematic review. Within these meetings, we used formal group consensus methods, based on nominal group techniques, to reach consensus decisions on key issues relating to the structure and methods of the review.

Results

The stakeholder group comprised 13 people, including stroke survivors, carers and physiotherapists with a range of different experience, and either 12 or 13 participated in each meeting. At meeting 1, there was consensus that methods of categorising interventions that were used in the original Cochrane review were no longer appropriate or clinically relevant (11/13 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with previous categories) and that international trials (which had not fitted into the original method of categorisation) ought to be included within the review (12/12 participants agreed or strongly agreed these should be included). At meeting 2, the group members reached consensus over 27 clearly defined treatment components, which were to be used to categorise interventions within the review (12/12 agreed or strongly agreed), and at meeting 3, they agreed on the key messages emerging from the completed review. All participants strongly agreed that the views of the group impacted on the review update, that the review benefited from the involvement of the stakeholder group, and that they believed other Cochrane reviews would benefit from the involvement of similar stakeholder groups.

Conclusions

We involved a stakeholder group in the update of a Cochrane systematic review, using clearly described structured methods to reach consensus decisions. The involvement of stakeholders impacted substantially on the review, with the inclusion of international studies, and changes to classification of treatments, comparisons and subgroup comparisons explored within the meta-analysis. We argue that the structured approach which we adopted has implications for other systematic reviews.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gartlehner G, Flamm M. Is the Cochrane Collaboration prepared for the era of patient-centred outcomes research? Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:ED000054.PubMed Gartlehner G, Flamm M. Is the Cochrane Collaboration prepared for the era of patient-centred outcomes research? Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:ED000054.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16:323–37.CrossRefPubMed Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16:323–37.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference INVOLVE. Public involvement in systematic reviews: supplement to the briefing notes for researchers. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012. INVOLVE. Public involvement in systematic reviews: supplement to the briefing notes for researchers. Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012.
5.
go back to reference Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e001220.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M. Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e001220.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Serrano-Aguilar P, Trujillo-Martin MM, Ramos-Goni JM, Mahtani-Chugani V, Perestelo-Perez L, Posada-de La Paz M. Patient involvement in health research: a contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69:920–5.CrossRefPubMed Serrano-Aguilar P, Trujillo-Martin MM, Ramos-Goni JM, Mahtani-Chugani V, Perestelo-Perez L, Posada-de La Paz M. Patient involvement in health research: a contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69:920–5.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Horey D. Consumer involvement in the Cochrane Collaboration: background paper. In: Cochrane Collaboration steering group meeting. Auckland; 2010. Horey D. Consumer involvement in the Cochrane Collaboration: background paper. In: Cochrane Collaboration steering group meeting. Auckland; 2010.
8.
go back to reference Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2011;102:105–16.CrossRefPubMed Boote J, Baird W, Sutton A. Public involvement in the systematic review process in health and social care: a narrative review of case examples. Health Policy. 2011;102:105–16.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
go back to reference Fisher A, Martin J, Srikusalanukul W, Davis M. Trends in stroke survival incidence rates in older Australians in the new millennium and forecasts into the future. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23:759–70.CrossRefPubMed Fisher A, Martin J, Srikusalanukul W, Davis M. Trends in stroke survival incidence rates in older Australians in the new millennium and forecasts into the future. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23:759–70.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992. Wade DT. Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.
13.
go back to reference Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:741–54.CrossRefPubMed Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:741–54.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Kollen BJ, Lennon S, Lyons B, Wheatley-Smith L, Scheper M, Buurke JH, et al. The effectiveness of the Bobath concept in stroke rehabilitation: what is the evidence? Stroke. 2009;40:e89–97.CrossRefPubMed Kollen BJ, Lennon S, Lyons B, Wheatley-Smith L, Scheper M, Buurke JH, et al. The effectiveness of the Bobath concept in stroke rehabilitation: what is the evidence? Stroke. 2009;40:e89–97.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Pollock A, Baer G, Pomeroy V, Langhorne P. Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2:CD001920.PubMed Pollock A, Baer G, Pomeroy V, Langhorne P. Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2:CD001920.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Pollock A, Baer G, Pomeroy V, Langhorne P. Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;1:CD001920.PubMed Pollock A, Baer G, Pomeroy V, Langhorne P. Physiotherapy treatment approaches for the recovery of postural control and lower limb function following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;1:CD001920.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Pollock A, Baer G, Campbell P, Choo PL, Forster A, Morris J, et al. Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4:CD001920.PubMed Pollock A, Baer G, Campbell P, Choo PL, Forster A, Morris J, et al. Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4:CD001920.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Smith E, Donovan S, Beresford P, Manthorpe J, Brearley S, Sitzia J, et al. Getting ready for user involvement in a systematic review. Health Expect. 2009;12:197–208.PubMed Smith E, Donovan S, Beresford P, Manthorpe J, Brearley S, Sitzia J, et al. Getting ready for user involvement in a systematic review. Health Expect. 2009;12:197–208.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Stapleton T, Connelly D. Occupational therapy practice in predriving assessment post stroke in the Irish context: findings from a nominal group technique meeting. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010;17:58–68.CrossRefPubMed Stapleton T, Connelly D. Occupational therapy practice in predriving assessment post stroke in the Irish context: findings from a nominal group technique meeting. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010;17:58–68.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Nair R, Aggarwal R, Khanna D. Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2011;41:95–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nair R, Aggarwal R, Khanna D. Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2011;41:95–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Sinha I, Jones L, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sinha I, Jones L, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Pollock A, Campbell P, Arshad C, Campbell A, Goodare H, Smith M. Making Cochrane evidence useful: giving patients, carers and clinicians a real say in a Cochrane review (workshop). Cochrane UK and Ireland Annual Symposium. Manchester, UK; 2014. http://manchester2014.cochrane.org/node/6840. Accessed 12/03/15. Pollock A, Campbell P, Arshad C, Campbell A, Goodare H, Smith M. Making Cochrane evidence useful: giving patients, carers and clinicians a real say in a Cochrane review (workshop). Cochrane UK and Ireland Annual Symposium. Manchester, UK; 2014. http://​manchester2014.​cochrane.​org/​node/​6840. Accessed 12/03/15.
24.
go back to reference Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213–36.CrossRefPubMed Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002;61:213–36.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review: using structured methods to enhance the clinical relevance, usefulness and usability of a systematic review update
Authors
Alex Pollock
Pauline Campbell
Gillian Baer
Pei Ling Choo
Jacqui Morris
Anne Forster
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0023-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Systematic Reviews 1/2015 Go to the issue