1
|
Fadlallah R, Daher N, El-Harakeh A, Hammam R, Brax H, Bou Karroum L, Lopes LC, Arnous G, Kassamany I, Baltayan S, Harb A, Lotfi T, El-Jardali F, Akl EA. Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review. BMJ Glob Health 2022; 7:bmjgh-2021-007465. [PMID: 35501067 PMCID: PMC9062777 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-007465] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area. Methods We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts. Results Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%). Conclusion We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Racha Fadlallah
- Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Najla Daher
- Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Amena El-Harakeh
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Rima Hammam
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Hneine Brax
- Faculty of Medicine, Université Saint-Joseph, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Lama Bou Karroum
- Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | | | - Ghida Arnous
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Inas Kassamany
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Stephanie Baltayan
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Aya Harb
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Tamara Lotfi
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Fadi El-Jardali
- Department of Health Management and Policy, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Elie A Akl
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon .,Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Huq MR, Woodard N, Okwara L, McCarthy S, Knott CL. Recommendations for breast cancer education for African American women below screening age. HEALTH EDUCATION RESEARCH 2022; 36:530-540. [PMID: 34533195 DOI: 10.1093/her/cyab033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2021] [Accepted: 08/27/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Although statistically unlikely, early-onset breast cancer tends to be more aggressive and leads to greater mortality than breast cancer among women of screening age. Young African American women are disproportionately impacted by early-onset breast cancer compared to women of other races. Given the racial disparities and because young women are typically not the primary audience for breast cancer educational messaging, there is a need to identify recommendations for age-appropriate breast cancer education for African American women below mammogram eligibility. Through N = 30 key informant interviews with young African American breast cancer survivors, family members of young survivors, community organization leaders and healthcare providers, we identified breast cancer educational message content and communication channels relevant for these women. Participants recommended that message content should emphasize the need to address family cancer history and self-advocacy in healthcare encounters in addition to concerns about loss of womanhood, financial costs and opportunity costs associated with preventive healthcare visits. Breast cancer messages for this audience should consider the influences of earlier life stage, culture and race. Recommended communication channels highlighted use of social media and videos. Findings will inform future age-appropriate educational messaging aimed at eliminating early-onset breast cancer disparities disproportionately impacting young African American women.
Collapse
|
3
|
Yan A, Hooyer K, Asan O, Flower M, Whittle J. Engaging veteran stakeholders to identify patient-centred research priorities for optimizing implementation of lung cancer screening. Health Expect 2021; 25:408-418. [PMID: 34890474 PMCID: PMC8849265 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2021] [Revised: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 11/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient engagement in research agenda setting is increasingly being seen as a strategy to improve the responsiveness of healthcare to patient priorities. Implementation of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is suboptimal, suggesting that research is needed. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to describe an approach by which a Veteran patient group worked with other stakeholders to develop a research agenda for LDCT screening and to describe the research questions that they prioritized. METHODS We worked with Veterans organizations to identify 12 Veterans or family members at risk for or having experience with lung cancer to form a Patient Advisory Council (PAC). The PAC met repeatedly from June 2018 to December 2020, both independently and jointly, with stakeholders representing clinicians, health administrators and researchers to identify relevant research topics. The PAC prioritized these topics and then identified questions within these areas where research was needed using an iterative process. Finally, they ranked the importance of obtaining answers to these questions. RESULTS PAC members valued the co-learning generated by interactions with stakeholders, but emphasized the importance of facilitation to avoid stakeholders dominating the discussion. The PAC prioritized three broad research areas-(1) the impact of insurance on uptake of LDCT; (2) how best to inform Veterans about LDCT; and (3) follow-up and impact of screening results. Using these areas as guides, PAC members identified 20 specific questions, ranking as most important (1) innovative outreach methods, (2) the impact of screening on psychological health, and (3) the impact of outsourcing scans from VA to non-VA providers on completion of recommended follow-up of screening results. The latter two were not identified as high priority by the stakeholder group. CONCLUSIONS We present an approach that facilitates co-learning between Veteran patients and providers, researchers and health system administrators to increase patient confidence in their ability to contribute important information to a research agenda. The research questions prioritized by the Veterans who participated in this project illustrate that for this new screening technology, patients are concerned about the practical details of implementation (e.g., follow-up) and the technology's impact on quality of life. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION Veterans and Veteran advocates contributed to our research team throughout the entire research process, including conceiving and co-authoring this manuscript.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice Yan
- Center for Advancing Population Science, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Katinka Hooyer
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, Center for Healthy Communities and Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Onur Asan
- School of Systems & Enterprises, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
| | - Mark Flower
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Jeff Whittle
- Department of Medicine, Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Storytelling training to promote stakeholder engagement in research dissemination. J Clin Transl Sci 2021; 6:e5. [PMID: 35211332 PMCID: PMC8826007 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2021.830] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2021] [Revised: 07/21/2021] [Accepted: 07/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Storytelling is increasingly recognized as a culturally relevant, human-centered strategy and has been linked to improvements in health knowledge, behavior, and outcomes. The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research designed and implemented a storytelling training program as a potentially versatile approach to promote stakeholder engagement. Data collected from multiple sources, including participant ratings, responses to open-ended questions, and field notes, consistently pointed to high-level satisfaction and acceptability of the program. As a next step, the storytelling training process and its impact need to be further investigated.
Collapse
|
5
|
van de Bovenkamp HM, Platenkamp C, Bal R. Understanding patient experiences: The powerful source of written patient stories. Health Expect 2020; 23:717-718. [PMID: 32239611 PMCID: PMC7321731 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2020] [Accepted: 03/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Hester M van de Bovenkamp
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Coleta Platenkamp
- Founder of Foundation Coleta's Chronic Circus, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roland Bal
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Yan A, Millon-Underwood S, Walker A, Patten C, Nevels D, Dookeran K, Hennessy R, Knobloch MJ, Egede L, Stolley M. Engaging young African American women breast cancer survivors: A novel storytelling approach to identify patient-centred research priorities. Health Expect 2020; 23:473-482. [PMID: 31916641 PMCID: PMC7104646 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2019] [Revised: 12/02/2019] [Accepted: 12/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Patient‐centredness is considered an essential aspiration of a high‐quality health‐care system, and patient engagement is a critical precursor to patient‐centred care. Objectives To engage patients, health‐care providers and stakeholders in identifying recommendations to address research and practice gaps that impact young African American breast cancer survivors. Methods This paper reported an approach for research priority setting. This approach applies an engagement process (January‐September 2018) of using patient and stakeholder groups, patient storytelling workshops and a culminating storytelling conference in Wisconsin to generate relevant research topics and recommendations. Topics were prioritized using an iterative engagement process. Research priorities and recommendation were ranked over the conference by counting participants’ anonymous votes. Results One hundred attendees (43 patients/family members, 20 providers/researchers and 37 community members) participated in the conference. Five topics were identified as priorities. The results showed that three priority areas received the most votes, specifically community outreach and education, providing affordable health care and engaging in complementary care practice. Stakeholders also agreed it is critical to ‘include youth in the conversation’ when planning for cancer support and educational programmes for caregivers, friends and family members. Conclusion Storytelling as a patient engagement approach can build trust in the patient‐research partnership, ensure that patients are meaningfully engaged throughout the process and capture the diversity of patient experiences and perspectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice Yan
- Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | | | - Alonzo Walker
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Breast Care Center, Froedtert & The Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Caitlin Patten
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Breast Care Center, Froedtert & The Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Debra Nevels
- American Cancer Society - North Region, Waukesha, WI, USA
| | - Keith Dookeran
- Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Rose Hennessy
- Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Mary Jo Knobloch
- School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Leonard Egede
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Melinda Stolley
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|