Browsing by Author "Welch, Vivian"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Effectiveness of stop smoking interventions among adults: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and an updated systematic review
    (2019-01-19) Hersi, Mona; Traversy, Gregory; Thombs, Brett D; Beck, Andrew; Skidmore, Becky; Groulx, Stéphane; Lang, Eddy; Reynolds, Donna L; Wilson, Brenda; Bernstein, Steven L; Selby, Peter; Johnson-Obaseki, Stephanie; Manuel, Douglas; Pakhale, Smita; Presseau, Justin; Courage, Susan; Hutton, Brian; Shea, Beverley J; Welch, Vivian; Morrow, Matt; Little, Julian; Stevens, Adrienne
    Abstract Background Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of cancer, preventable death, and disability. Smoking cessation can increase life expectancy by nearly a decade if achieved in the third or fourth decades of life. Various stop smoking interventions are available including pharmacotherapies, electronic cigarettes, behavioural support, and alternative therapies. This protocol outlines an evidence review which will evaluate the benefits and harms of stop smoking interventions in adults. Methods The evidence review will consist of two stages. First, an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions delivered in or referred from the primary care setting will be conducted. The second stage will involve updating a systematic review on electronic cigarettes identified in the overview; randomized controlled trials will be considered for outcomes relating to benefits while randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and comparative observational studies will be considered for evaluating harms. Search strategies will be developed and peer-reviewed by medical information specialists. The search strategy for the updated review on e-cigarettes will be developed using that of the candidate systematic review. The MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases will be searched as of 2008 for the overview of reviews and from the last search date of the selected review for the updated review. Organizational websites and trial registries will be searched for unpublished or ongoing reviews/studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the title and abstracts of citations using the liberal accelerated method. Full-text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will be verified by a second reviewer. Disagreements regarding full-text screening and data extraction will be resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. The methodological quality of systematic reviews, risk of bias of randomized and non-randomized trials, and methodological quality of cohort studies will be evaluated using AMSTAR 2, the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and a modified version of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network critical appraisal tool, respectively. The GRADE framework will be used to assess the quality of the evidence for outcomes. Discussion The evidence review will evaluate the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions for adults. Findings will be used to inform a national tobacco cessation guideline by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD42018099691, CRD42018099692)
  • 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
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Realist review of community coalitions and outreach interventions to increase access to primary care for vulnerable populations: a realist review
    (2023-06-24) Welch, Vivian; Pottie, Kevin; Gaudet, Caroline; Thuku, Micere; Mallard, Ryan; Spenceley, Shannon; Amjed, Nida; Wadhwani, Arpana; Ghogomu, Elizabeth; Scott, Cathie; Dahrouge, Simone
    Abstract Background There are meaningful gaps in equitable access to Primary Health Care (PHC), especially for vulnerable populations after widespread reforms in Western countries. The Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation (IMPACT) research program is a Canadian-Australian collaboration that aims to improve access to PHC for vulnerable populations. Relationships were developed with stakeholders in six regions across Canada and Australia where access-related needs could be identified. The most promising interventions would be implemented and tested to address the needs identified. This realist review was conducted to understand how community coalition and outreach (e.g., mobile or pop-up) services improve access for underserved vulnerable residents. Objective To inform the development and delivery of an innovative intervention to increase access to PHC for vulnerable populations. Methods A realist review was conducted in collaboration with the Local Innovative Partnership (LIP) research team and the IMPACT research members who conducted the review. We performed an initial comprehensive systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library up to October 19, 2015, and updated it on August 8, 2020. Studies were included if they focused on interventions to improve access to PHC using community coalition, outreach services or mobile delivery methods. We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and systematic reviews. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used for data extraction and framework analysis to obtain themes. The LIP research team was also allowed to suggest additional papers not included at screening. Results We included 43 records, comprising 31 RCTs, 11 systematic reviews, and 1 case control study that was added by the LIP research team. We identified three main themes of PHC interventions to promote access for vulnerable residents, including: 1) tailoring of materials and services decreases barriers to primary health care, 2) services offered where vulnerable populations gather increases the “reach” of the interventions, 3) partnerships and collaborations lead to positive health outcomes. In addition, implementation designs and reporting elements should be considered. Conclusion Realist reviews can help guide the development of locally adapted primary health care interventions.