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

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorEffa, Emmanuel E.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorOduwole, Olabisien_ZA
dc.contributor.authorSchoonees, Anelen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorHohlfeld, Ameeren_ZA
dc.contributor.authorDurao, Solangeen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorKredo, Tamaraen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorMbuagbaw, Lawrenceen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorMeremikwu, Martinen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorOngolo-Zogo, Pierreen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorWiysonge, Charles S.en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorYoung, Tarynen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-30T12:23:34Z
dc.date.available2021-07-30T12:23:34Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.descriptionCITATION: Effa, E. E., et al. 2019. Priority setting for new systematic reviews : processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa. BMJ Global Health, 4(4):e001615, doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615.
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at https://gh.bmj.com
dc.description.abstractPriority 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.en_ZA
dc.description.urihttps://gh.bmj.com/content/4/4/e001615
dc.description.versionPublisher's version
dc.format.extent8 pages ; illustrations
dc.identifier.citationEffa, E. E., et al. 2019. Priority setting for new systematic reviews : processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa. BMJ Global Health, 4(4):e001615, doi:10.1136/ bmjgh-2019-001615
dc.identifier.issn2059-7908 (online)
dc.identifier.otherdoi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001615
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/110790
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group
dc.rights.holderAuthors retain copyright
dc.subjectHealth -- Research -- Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectSystematic reviews (Medical research) -- Africaen_ZA
dc.titlePriority setting for new systematic reviews : processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africaen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
effa_priority_2019.pdf
Size:
649.28 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Research Articles (Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care)