4.6 Review

An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 66, 期 5, 页码 511-521

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.11.013

关键词

Systematic reviews; Priority setting; The Cochrane Collaboration; Equity; Social determinants of health; Research priorities

资金

  1. Cochrane Collaboration Prioritization Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study aimed to develop and pilot an equity lens that could help researchers in developing a more equity-oriented approach toward priority setting and agenda setting in systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting: We developed an equity lens to guide the development and evaluation of a prioritization process and evaluate its outcomes based on the information derived from a discussion workshop and a comparison with the existing literature on the topic. We piloted the process section of the equity lens across the 13 structured priority-setting approaches in the Cochrane Collaboration. Results: We devised an equity lens with two checklists: one to guide the process of priority setting (nine questions) and the other to evaluate the outcomes of priority setting (eight questions). Of the nine questions, seven questions were partially addressed by at least one of the prioritization projects. Two questions were not considered in any of them. The prioritization projects did not report sufficient outcome data, thus we could not explore the eight question on evaluating outcomes. Conclusion: Currently, there are few strategies in the Cochrane Collaboration that explicitly address the research priorities of individuals from different sociodemographic groups. The equity lens for priority setting and agenda setting can help project teams to develop a more equity-oriented approach to set a research agenda and/or prioritize research topics. However, further studies are needed to evaluate its impact on the prioritization process. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据