Top 20 research priorities on methods of co-production in evidence synthesis

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Co-production in evidence synthesis is increasingly recognized as essential for developing meaningful evidence for decision making. However, little is known about when, how and whom to involve, and no clear research agenda exists to guide which methodological aspects of co-production should be prioritized. This study aimed to identify and prioritize research topics through a rigorous process.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a multi-phase Delphi process to achieve agreement on methodological research priorities. We generated research ideas from a pre-study workshop, a widely rolled out survey, and a review of methodological papers. We qualitatively analyzed and synthesized these ideas into broad topics, each presented with explanations and examples. People representing relevant key interest-holder groups in evidence synthesis, namely (1) experts in co-production, (2) health professionals, (3) patients/carers/public, (4) policy makers, and (5) researchers, rated topics over two Delphi rounds using a 7-point Likert scale (1=of least importance; 7=of greatest importance). We weighted results to address under-representation of interest-holders and visualized group results.

RESULTS: Starting with an interim list of 47 research ideas, we incorporated 86 contributions from 141 survey participants and 109 research needs from 28 methodological research papers. This process yielded 242 items that we grouped into 31 distinct topics. The Delphi process involved 58 participants in round 1, 52 in round 2, and 48 in the final round, with participation of all interest-holder groups. Participants were from 21 countries across all continents. In the final round, 98% of participants agreed on the weighted, final list of the top 20 research priorities, with the highest-ranked topics being methodological research relating to (1) engagement of diverse co-producers, (2) best practice standards for engagement/involvement, (3) power dynamics, (4) communication and relationship with co-producers, and (5) impact of co-production on the evidence synthesis.

CONCLUSION: Our study establishes a clear research agenda for researchers, policy makers, and funders. These priorities should inform future efforts for advancing methods of co-production in evidence synthesis.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Evidence synthesis is the process of bringing together information from multiple studies to provide a clearer understanding of what is known about a specific topic. Research co-production means that research teams and people with an interest in the topic - such as patients/carers/public, healthcare professionals, policy makers, and many more work together to plan, conduct, and publish research that is relevant and useful. There is currently little known about how best to achieve useful and impactful co-production for evidence synthesis. In this study, we gathered ideas about possible research to improve co-production in evidence synthesis from a range of people. We then had a series of online voting, using recognized methods to help reach agreement. We used analysis methods designed to give all groups of people an equal voice in the voting process. We gathered 242 ideas which we grouped into 31 topics. 58 people from 21 countries voted on these. The process identified the shared top 20 research priorities.