Display options
Cite
Effa EE, Oduwole O, Schoonees A, et al. Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(4):e001615doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615.
Effa, E. E., Oduwole, O., Schoonees, A., Hohlfeld, A., Durao, S., Kredo, T., Mbuagbaw, L., Meremikwu, M., Ongolo-Zogo, P., Wiysonge, C., & Young, T. (2019). Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa. BMJ global health, 4(4), e001615. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615
Effa, Emmanuel E, et al. "Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa." BMJ global health vol. 4,4 (2019): e001615. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615
Effa EE, Oduwole O, Schoonees A, Hohlfeld A, Durao S, Kredo T, Mbuagbaw L, Meremikwu M, Ongolo-Zogo P, Wiysonge C, Young T. Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa. BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jul 26;4(4):e001615. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615. eCollection 2019. PMID: 31406592; PMCID: PMC6666801.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jul 26;4(4):e001615. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615. eCollection 2019.

Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa.

BMJ global health

Emmanuel E Effa, Olabisi Oduwole, Anel Schoonees, Ameer Hohlfeld, Solange Durao, Tamara Kredo, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Martin Meremikwu, Pierre Ongolo-Zogo, Charles Wiysonge, Taryn Young

Affiliations

  1. Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.
  2. Cochrane Nigeria, Calabar Institute of Tropical Disease Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria.
  3. Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa.
  4. Cochrane South Africa, Medical Research Council of South Africa, Tygerberg, South Africa.
  5. Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, South Africa.
  6. Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  7. Paediatrics, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.
  8. Centre for Development of Best Practices in Health, Central Hospital of Yaounde, Yaounde, Cameroon.
  9. Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.

PMID: 31406592 PMCID: PMC6666801 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615

Abstract

Priority setting to identify topical and context relevant questions for systematic reviews involves an explicit, iterative and inclusive process. In resource-constrained settings of low-income and middle-income countries, priority setting for health related research activities ensures efficient use of resources. In this paper, we critically reflect on the approaches and specific processes adopted across three regions of Africa, present some of the outcomes and share the lessons learnt while carrying out these activities. Priority setting for new systematic reviews was conducted between 2016 and 2018 across three regions in Africa. Different approaches were used: Multimodal approach (Central Africa), Modified Delphi approach (West Africa) and Multilevel stakeholder discussion (Southern-Eastern Africa). Several questions that can feed into systematic reviews have emerged from these activities. We have learnt that collaborative subregional efforts using an integrative approach can effectively lead to the identification of region specific priorities. Systematic review workshops including discussion about the role and value of reviews to inform policy and research agendas were a useful part of the engagements. This may also enable relevant stakeholders to contribute towards the priority setting process in meaningful ways. However, certain shared challenges were identified, including that emerging priorities may be overlooked due to differences in burden of disease data and differences in language can hinder effective participation by stakeholders. We found that face-to-face contact is crucial for success and follow-up engagement with stakeholders is critical in driving acceptance of the findings and planning future progress.

Keywords: cochrane africa; hubs; lessons; priority setting; systematic reviews

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. Milbank Q. 2003;81(3):363-88 - PubMed
  2. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Mar;59(3):193-7 - PubMed
  3. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Mar 05;9:43 - PubMed
  4. Trop Med Int Health. 2009 Aug;14(8):930-9 - PubMed
  5. PLoS Med. 2010 Jul 13;7(7):e1000308 - PubMed
  6. Health Policy. 2011 Mar;99(3):244-9 - PubMed
  7. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010 Dec 15;8:36 - PubMed
  8. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011 May 15;9:19 - PubMed
  9. Pan Afr Med J. 2011;8:15 - PubMed
  10. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):474-82 - PubMed
  11. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):472-3 - PubMed
  12. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001312 - PubMed
  13. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65 - PubMed
  14. Implement Sci. 2014 Feb 20;9:24 - PubMed
  15. Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Apr 1;94(4):297-305 - PubMed
  16. Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1545-1602 - PubMed
  17. Health Policy. 2017 Sep;121(9):937-946 - PubMed
  18. Pan Afr Med J. 2018 Apr 03;29:196 - PubMed
  19. Res Involv Engagem. 2018 Nov 5;4:41 - PubMed
  20. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Jul 1;127(1):37-42 - PubMed

Publication Types