Matching the right study design to decision-maker questions: Results from a Delphi study

Author:

Mansilla CristiánORCID,Guyatt Gordon,Sweetman ArthurORCID,Lavis John N

Abstract

Research evidence can play an important role in each stage of decision-making, evidence-support systems play a key role in aligning the demand for and supply of evidence. This paper provides guidance on what type of study designs most suitably address questions asked by decision-makers. This study used a two-round online Delphi approach, including methodological experts in different areas, disciplines, and geographic locations. Participants prioritized study designs for each of 40 different types of question, with a Kendall’s W greater than 0.6 and reaching statistical significance (p<0.05) considered as a consensus. For each type of question, we sorted the final rankings based on their median ranks and interquartile ranges, and listed the four study designs with the highest median ranks. Participants provided 29 answers in the two rounds of the Delphi, and reached a consensus for 28 (out of the 40) questions (eight in the first round and 20 in the second). Participants achieved a consensus for 8 of 15 questions in stage I (clarifying a societal problem, its causes, and potential impacts), 12 of 13 in stage II (finding options to address a problem) and four of six in each of stages III (implementing or scaling-up an option) and IV (monitoring implementation and evaluating impact). This paper provides guidance on what study designs are more suitable to give insights on 28 different types of questions. Decision-makers, evidence intermediaries (, researchers and funders can use this guidance to make better decisions on what type of study design to commission, use or fund when answering specific needs.

Publisher

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Reference18 articles.

1. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 4: Using research evidence to clarify a problem;JN Lavis;Health Research Policy and Systems,2009

2. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 5: Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem;JN Lavis;Health Research Policy and Systems,2009

3. SUPPORT Tools for Evidence-informed Policymaking in health 6: Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented;A Fretheim;Health Res Policy Sys,2009

4. How COVID broke the evidence pipeline;H. Pearson;Nature,2021

5. Cochrane Convenes. Preparing for and responding to global health emergencies: Learnings from the COVID-19 evidence response and recommendations for the future. February 2022 [Internet]. 2022. https://figshare.com/articles/book/Preparing_for_and_responding_to_global_health_emergencies_Learnings_from_the_COVID-19_evidence_response_and_recommendations_for_the_future/19115849

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3