Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec 1;1(10):e12032.
doi: 10.1002/cesm.12032. eCollection 2023 Dec.

Stakeholder involvement in a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke: Description and reflections

Julie Brown  1 , Gill Baer  2 , Sheila Cameron  3 , Karl Jackson  4 , Carrol Lamouline  5 , Richard Morley  6 , Diane Ormsby  7 , Anneliese Synnot  8 , Alex Todhunter-Brown  9
Affiliations

Stakeholder involvement in a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke: Description and reflections

Julie Brown et al. Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. .

Abstract

Introduction: It is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews, but it is not clear how best to involve them.

Aim: To describe and reflect on the stakeholder involvement within an update of a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke.

Methods: A stakeholder group, comprising 15 stroke survivors, carers, and physiotherapists from across the United Kingdom, were recruited and contributed throughout the process of the review. A framework was used to describe when and how stakeholders were involved. Stakeholders provided feedback on their involvement after meetings. An amended version of a validated patient engagement tool was used to collect reflections on the stakeholder involvement process.

Results: Five stakeholder meetings were held throughout the review process, supplemented by additional communication. Several changes were made to the review structure, analyses, and wording as a direct result of the stakeholder involvement. Stakeholders and researchers agreed that stakeholders' contributions were taken seriously and influenced the review. Stakeholders felt that they were given the chance to share their views and that information was shared well before, during, and after each meeting to help them to contribute knowledgeably in the process. Stakeholder reflections highlighted a number of key lessons relating to stakeholder involvement, including process of reflection and feedback, use of remote/virtual meetings, need for adequate time and funding, tensions experienced by clinicians, and recruitment considerations.

Conclusions: We describe and reflect on stakeholder involvement in a systematic review and explores practical ways to support meaningful engagement during systematic review production. Our experience supports the view that coproducing reviews with stakeholders can make systematic reviews more relevant and meaningful. Our approach and experiences can be used to inform future review coproduction, supporting development of useful reviews that will improve clinical practice.

Keywords: coproduction; patient and public involvement; reflection; stakeholder involvement; stroke; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Alex Todhunter‐Brown is co‐lead of the Cochrane Heart, Stroke & Circulation Thematic Group and Cochair of the Cochrane Coproduction Methods Group; Richard Morley is Chair, International network on public involvement in health and social care research; Sheila Cameron and Carrol Lamouline both received payments (in the form of gift vouchers) for involvement in activities associated with the updating of the Cochrane review (as described in the paper), but did not receive any payments for contributions to this paper. Gill Baer, Julie Brown, Karl Jackson, Diane Ormsby and Anneliese Synnot declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Recruitment process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Stakeholder involvement throughout the review process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hoddinott P, Pollock A, O'Cathain A, et al. How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research. F1000Research. 2018;7:752. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Concannon TW, Grant S, Welch V, et al. Practical guidance for involving stakeholders in health research. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458‐463. - PMC - PubMed
    1. NIHR . Briefing Notes for Researchers. Cochrane; 2021. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-i...
    1. Redman S, Greenhalgh T, Adedokun L, Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Co‐production of Knowledge Collection Steering Committee . Co‐production of knowledge: the future. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2021;372:434. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crocker JC, Ricci‐Cabello I, Parker A, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2018;363:4738. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources