Heather Limburg’s research while affiliated with Public Health Agency of Canada and other places

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize empirical research on the impacts of interest‐holder engagement on the guideline development process and content. Our research questions are as follows: (1) What are the empirical examples of impact on the process in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist? (2) What are the empirical examples of impact on the content in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist?

Background: Fragility fractures are a major health concern for older adults and can result in disability, admission to hospital and long-term care, and reduced quality of life. This Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on screening to prevent fragility fractures in community-dwelling individuals aged 40 years and older who are not currently on preventive pharmacotherapy. Methods: We commissioned systematic reviews on benefits and harms of screening, predictive accuracy of risk assessment tools, patient acceptability and benefits of treatment. We analyzed treatment harms via a rapid overview of reviews. We further examined patient values and preferences via focus groups and engaged stakeholders at key points throughout the project. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome and strength of recommendations, and adhered to Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE), Guidelines International Network and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP-2) reporting guidance. Recommendations: We recommend "risk assessment-first" screening for prevention of fragility fractures in females aged 65 years and older, with initial application of the Canadian clinical Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD). The FRAX result should be used to facilitate shared decision-making about the possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy. After this discussion, if preventive pharmacotherapy is being considered, clinicians should request BMD measurement using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the femoral neck, and re-estimate fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into FRAX (conditional recommendation, low-certainty evidence). We recommend against screening females aged 40-64 years and males aged 40 years and older (strong recommendation, very low-certainty evidence). These recommendations apply to community-dwelling individuals who are not currently on pharmacotherapy to prevent fragility fractures. Interpretation: Risk assessment-first screening for females aged 65 years and older facilitates shared decision-making and allows patients to consider preventive pharmacotherapy within their individual risk context (before BMD). Recommendations against screening males and younger females emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at higher risk of fragility fracture.

Purpose To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older in primary care. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews. Methods Updates of two systematic reviews and a de novo review will be conducted to synthesize the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or digital rectal examination (DRE) (with or without additional information) and patient values and preferences. Outcomes for the benefits of screening include reduced prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, and incidence of metastatic prostate cancer. Outcomes for the harms of screening include false-positive screening tests, overdiagnosis, complications due to biopsy, and complications of treatment including incontinence (urinary or bowel), and erectile dysfunction. The quality of life or functioning (overall and disease-specific) and psychological effects outcomes are considered as a possible benefit or harm. Outcomes for the values and preferences review include quantitative or qualitative information regarding the choice to screen or intention to undergo screening. For the reviews on benefits or harms, we will search for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized, and controlled studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For the review on values and preferences, we will search for experimental or observational studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. For all reviews, we will also search websites of relevant organizations, gray literature, and reference lists of included studies. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments will be completed independently by pairs of reviewers with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Discussion The series of systematic reviews will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their 2014 guideline on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older. Systematic review registration This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314407) and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/dm32k).

Background There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence‐based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health‐ and healthcare‐related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi‐Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series. Objectives The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi‐stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi‐stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN‐McMaster checklist? Search Methods A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer‐reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient‐Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline‐producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter. Selection Criteria We will include empirical qualitative and mixed‐method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer‐review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN‐McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development. Data Collection and Analysis All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two‐part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full‐text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form. Main Results The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi‐stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The overall objective of this study is to gather and summarize the existing literature on conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in guideline development.

Purpose: To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older in primary care. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews. Methods: Updates of two systematic reviews and a de novo review will be conducted to synthesize the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen (PSA) and/or digital rectal examination (DRE) (with or without additional information) and patient values and preferences. Outcomes for the benefits of screening include reduced prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, and incidence of metastatic prostate cancer. Outcomes for the harms of screening include false positive screening tests, overdiagnosis, complications due to biopsy, and complications of treatment including incontinence (urinary or bowel), and erectile dysfunction. Quality of life or functioning (overall and disease-specific) and psychological effects outcomes are considered as a possible benefit or harm. Outcomes for the values and preferences review include quantitative or qualitative information regarding choice to screen or intention to undergo screening. For the reviews on benefits or harms, we will search for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomised, and controlled studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For the review on values and preferences, we will search for experimental or observational studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. For all reviews, we will also search websites of relevant organizations, grey literature, and reference lists of included studies. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments will be completed independently by pairs of reviewers with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Discussion: The series of systematic reviews will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their 2014 guideline on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older. Systematic review registration: This review has been registered with PROSPERO (ref# pending) and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/dm32k).