Prioritising child health and maternity evidence-based interventions or service models: a stakeholder-driven process

Abstract

AIM: A UK programme, led by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ( https://www.nihr.ac.uk ) and coordinated by Applied Research Collaborations (ARC), ( https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/support/collaborating-in-applied-health-research.htm ) aimed to identify and select evidence-based, implementation-ready service innovations for evaluation. The programme focused on seven areas of health provision. We report on a prioritisation process designed to identify and assess innovations in one of these areas: child and maternal health (CH&M). METHODS: We developed a three-stage, online, stakeholder driven process to 1) identify, 2) assess and prioritise and 3) select evidence-based interventions or service models, using crowdsourcing to identify projects and the APEASE criteria to assess and select projects. A brief evidence review was conducted for all initial suggestions to identify those with the largest evidence-base to take forward for ranking by stakeholders. Stakeholder workshops considered and ranked these suggestions using the APEASE criteria. We then conducted in-depth evidence reviews for the highest ranked suggestions. The Project Management Group and Advisory Board used these reviews and the APEASE criteria to select the final projects. RESULTS: We received 32 initial suggestions from a range of clinicians, practitioners and researchers. Fourteen of the most evidence-based suggestions were considered and ranked at four themed stakeholder workshops. Nine suggestions were ranked for further in-depth evidence review and a final four projects were selected for implementation evaluation using the APEASE criteria. These were: 1. Maternal Mental Health Services Multidisciplinary Teams 2. Early years tooth brushing programme 3. Trauma-focused CBT for young people in care and 4. Independent Domestic Violence Advisors in maternity settings. Feedback from participants suggested that having public representatives participating in all stakeholder meetings, rather than being consulted separately, focused discussions clearly on patient benefit rather than research aims. CONCLUSIONS: The stakeholder-driven process achieved its aim of identifying, prioritising and assessing and selecting, evidence-based projects for wider implementation and evaluation. The concurrent process could be adapted by other researchers or policy makers.