The SPARK tool to prioritize questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research

Session: 

Oral session: Priority setting (2)

Date: 

Sunday 16 September 2018 - 16:40 to 17:00

Location: 

Carrick 3

All authors in correct order:

Bou-Karroum L1, Fadlallah R1, El-Jardali F1, Akl E1
1 American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Lama Bou-Karroum

Contact person:

Lama Bou-Karroum
Abstract text
Background: Groups or institutions that fund or conduct systematic reviews in health policy and systems research (HPSR) should prioritize topics according to the needs of policymakers and stakeholders. A prioritization process can increase the likelihood that the best available evidence informs health-policy decision-making. It can also promote optimal allocation of resources. In the absence of priority setting tools that specifically focus on systematic reviews in HSPR, we took the initiative to develop and validate a tool – the SPARK tool – to prioritize questions for systematic reviews in HPSR.

Objective: To introduce participants to the SPARK tool and its application, including the user manual that provides guidance on how to use the tool.

Methods: We developed the tool following a four-step approach consisting of:
1) the definition of the purpose and scope of tool;
2) item generation and reduction;
3) testing for content and face validity; and
4) pilot testing of the tool.
The research team involved international experts in HPSR, systematic review methodology and tool development, led by the Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK). We followed an inclusive approach in determining the final selection of items to allow customization to the user’s needs. The SPARK tool has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Results: The SPARK tool consists of 22 items organized in two modules – the first module includes 13 items to be rated by policymakers and stakeholders, and the second includes nine items to be rated by systematic review teams. Users can customize the tool to their needs by omitting items that may not be applicable to their settings. We are currently experimenting with the tool at the SPARK Center. We will further reflect on the results of the pilot-testing during the presentation.

Conclusion: By aligning systematic review production to policy priorities, the tool will help support evidence-informed policymaking and reduce research waste.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: The SPARK tool will support evidence-informed decision-making and practice by promoting the production of policy-relevant systematic reviews. It will also facilitate engaging policymakers and stakeholders including citizen and healthcare consumers in prioritizing review questions.

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

SPARK tool will support evidence-informed decision-making and practice by promoting the production of policy-relevant systematic reviews. It will also facilitate engaging policymakers and stakeholders including citizens and healthcare consumers in prioritizing review questions.