Browsing by Author "Tugwell, Peter"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Crowdsourcing trainees in a living systematic review provided valuable experiential learning opportunities: A mixed-methods study
    (2022-03-29) Lee, Chloe; Thomas, Megan; Ejaredar, null; Kassam, Aliya; Whittle, Samuel L; Buchbinder, Rachelle; Tugwell, Peter; Wells, George; Pardo, Jordi Pardo; Hazlewood, Glen S
    Objective: To understand trainee experiences of participating in a living systematic review (LSR) for rheumatoid arthritis, and the potential benefits in terms of experiential evidence-based medicine (EBM) education. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a mixed-methods study with trainees that participated in the LSR who were recruited broadly from training programs in two countries. Trainees received task-specific training and completed one or more tasks in the review: assessing article eligibility, data extraction, quality assessment. Trainees completed a survey followed by a 1-on-1 interview. Data were triangulated to produce broad themes. Results: Twenty-one trainees, most of whom had little prior experience with systematic reviews, reported a positive overall experience. Key benefits included learning opportunities, task segmentation (ability to focus on a single task, as opposed to an entire review), working in a supportive environment, international collaboration, and incentives such as authorship or acknowledgement. Trainees reported improvement in their competency as a Scholar, Collaborator, Leader, and Medical Expert. Challenges included communication and technical difficulties, and appropriate matching of tasks to trainee skillsets. Conclusion: Participating in a LSR provided benefits to a wide range of trainees and may provide an opportunity for experiential EBM training, while helping LSR sustainability.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines
    (2023-04-28) Petkovic, Jennifer; Magwood, Olivia; Lytvyn, Lyubov; Khabsa, Joanne; Concannon, Thomas W.; Welch, Vivian; Todhunter-Brown, Alex; Palm, Marisha E.; Akl, Elie A.; Mbuagbaw, Lawrence; Arayssi, Thurayya; Avey, Marc T.; Marusic, Ana; Morley, Richard; Saginur, Michael; Slingers, Nevilene; Texeira, Ligia; Ben Brahem, Asma; Bhaumik, Soumyadeep; Bou Akl, Imad; Crowe, Sally; Dormer, Laura; Ekanem, Comfort; Lang, Eddy; Kianzad, Behrang; Kuchenmüller, Tanja; Moja, Lorenzo; Pottie, Kevin; Schünemann, Holger; Tugwell, Peter
    Abstract Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Patient preferences to value health outcomes in rheumatology clinical trials: Report from the OMERACT special interest group
    (Oxford University Press, British Society for Rheumatology, 2021-05-24) Thomas, Megan; Fraenkel, Liana; Boonen, Annelies; Bansback, Nick; Buchbinder, Rachelle; Marshall, Deborah; Proulx, Laurie; Voshaar, Marieke; Richards, Pamela; Richards, Dawn P; Hiligsmann, Mickael; Guillemin, Francis; Shea, Beverly; Tugwell, Peter; Hazlewood, Glen
    Objective. To inform a research plan for future studies by obtaining stakeholder input on the application of preference-based methods to clinical trial design. Methods. We conducted a virtual OMERACT session to encourage stakeholder engagement. We developed materials for the session to facilitate discussion based on identified case examples and feedback sessions. Results. Participants prioritized incorporating patient preferences in all aspects of trial design with an emphasis on outcome selection. Participants highlighted the need for careful consideration around preference heterogeneity and equity factors. Conclusion. Including patient preferences in trial design was considered a priority requiring further exploration to develop comprehensive guidance.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses
    (2023-08-02) Tugwell, Peter; Welch, Vivian; Magwood, Olivia; Todhunter-Brown, Alex; Akl, Elie A.; Concannon, Thomas W.; Khabsa, Joanne; Morley, Richard; Schunemann, Holger; Lytvyn, Lyubov; Agarwal, Arnav; Antequera, Alba; Avey, Marc T.; Campbell, Pauline; Chang, Christine; Chang, Stephanie; Dans, Leonila; Dewidar, Omar; Ghersi, Davina; Graham, Ian D.; Hazlewood, Glen; Hilgart, Jennifer; Horsley, Tanya; John, Denny; Jull, Janet; Maxwell, Lara J.; McCutcheon, Chris; Munn, Zachary; Nonino, Francesco; Pardo Pardo, Jordi; Parker, Roses; Pottie, Kevin; Rada, Gabriel; Riddle, Alison; Synnot, Anneliese; Ghogomu, Elizabeth T.; Tomlinson, Eve; Toupin-April, Karine; Petkovic, Jennifer
    Abstract Background Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses Methods Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. Consensus. The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. Dissemination. We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. Conclusion Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation
    (2020-02-01) Petkovic, Jennifer; Riddle, Alison; Akl, Elie A; Khabsa, Joanne; Lytvyn, Lyubov; Atwere, Pearl; Campbell, Pauline; Chalkidou, Kalipso; Chang, Stephanie M; Crowe, Sally; Dans, Leonila; Jardali, Fadi E; Ghersi, Davina; Graham, Ian D; Grant, Sean; Greer-Smith, Regina; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Hazlewood, Glen; Jull, Janet; Katikireddi, S. V; Langlois, Etienne V; Lyddiatt, Anne; Maxwell, Lara; Morley, Richard; Mustafa, Reem A; Nonino, Francesco; Pardo, Jordi P; Pollock, Alex; Pottie, Kevin; Riva, John; Schünemann, Holger; Simeon, Rosiane; Smith, Maureen; Stein, Airton T; Synnot, Anneliese; Tufte, Janice; White, Howard; Welch, Vivian; Concannon, Thomas W; Tugwell, Peter
    Abstract Background Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Methods This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Discussion We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our 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.