Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review

The academic impact of paediatric research agendas: a descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, researchers are involving children and young people in designing paediatric research agendas, but as far as we were able to determine, only one report exists on the academic impact of such an agenda. In our opinion, the importance of insight into the impact of research agendas designed together with children and young people cannot be overstated. The first aim of our study was therefore to develop a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas. Our second aim was to describe the academic impact of research agendas developed by involving children and young people.

METHODS

We based our method on aspects of the Research Impact Framework developed by Kuruvilla and colleagues and the Payback Framework developed by Donovan and Hanney. We named it Descriptive Academic Impact Analysis of Paediatric Research Agendas, consisting of five steps: [1] Identification of paediatric research agendas, [2] Citation analysis, [3] Impact analysis, [4] Author assessment, and [5] Classification of the ease of determining traceability.

RESULTS

We included 31 paediatric research agendas that were designed by involving children and young people. These agendas were cited 517 times, ranging from 0 to 71 citations. A total of 131 new studies (25%) were published, ranging from 0 to 23 per paediatric research agenda, based on at least one of the research priorities from the agenda. Sixty studies (46%) were developed by at least one of the first, second, or last authors of the paediatric research agenda on which the studies were based. Based on their accessibility and the ease with which we could identify the studies as being agenda-based, we categorised 44 studies (34%) as easy, 62 studies (47%) as medium, and 25 studies (19%) as difficult to identify.

CONCLUSION

This study reports on the development of a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas and it offers insight into the impact of 31 such agendas. We recommend that our results be used as a guide for designing future paediatric research agendas, especially by including ways of tracing the academic impact of new studies concerning the agendas' research priorities.

Identifying research priorities with children, youth, and families: A scoping review

Increased patient advocacy has resulted in a shift toward more active patient engagement in the research. A scoping review was conducted to explore the literature on healthcare research priority settings wherein children, youths, or their families were involved in the priority-setting process. Six databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Global Health and the James Lind Alliance website were searched up until September 2019. All primary studies involving children (<18 years of age) or families in developing research priorities in health care were included. All retrieved references were uploaded into Covidence, and two independent reviewers screened the search results. Descriptive thematic analysis was used to identify common themes. A total of 30 studies with 4247 participants were included. Less than half of the participants (n = 1237, (33%) were pediatric patients and their families. A total of 455 research priorities were identified. Three common themes emerged: (i) quality of care delivery, (ii) self-efficacy in health behaviors, and (iii) community engagement in care. This scoping review revealed priority research health topics from the perspectives of children, youths, or their families. The findings may be used as a foundation for future research to improve the health outcomes of children, youths, or their families according to their identified priorities.

Enhancing stakeholder roles in autism early interventions in the United States: A stakeholder-driven research agenda

LAY ABSTRACT

In this article, we outline a stakeholder-driven research agenda to guide future early intervention research for children with autism. Our research team collaborated with autism service providers, parents of individuals with autism, and autistic people to create this research agenda by (1) conducting workshops with community members and (2) distributing a survey to a larger number of community members around the country. The finalized research agenda includes (1) Guiding Principles for current and future research, (2) Research Priorities focused on early intervention for individuals with autism, and (3) Systems Implications to consider in future clinical, research, and policy efforts for early intervention. The full version of the research agenda is available in Supplemental Material. This article lists the main points of the research agenda and discusses unique themes highlighted by the community members. One main conclusion is that researchers need to include community members in decision-making and consultant positions throughout the research process to best meet the needs of the broader autism community. We have created a researcher workbook which we hope may facilitate these community consultation efforts. This workbook is available in Supplemental Material.

'It's Powerful' The impact of involving children and young people in developing paediatric research agendas: A qualitative interview study

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing consensus that children and young people (CYP) should be involved in matters that concern them. Progress is made in involving CYP in developing pediatric research agendas (PRAs), although the impact of their involvement remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs and assess the extent to which postpatient and public involvement (post-PPI) activities were planned.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews to identify and gain an in-depth understanding of the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs. The transcripts were uploaded to Atlas.ti to be coded and organised. Dutch-language interviews were analysed and interpreted together with vocational education and training (VET) students. These students were aged between 14 and 18 years and were training to become nurses.

RESULTS

Three CYP and 15 researchers decided to participate. We focused on three categories of impact: agenda-setting impact, individual impact and academic impact. Involving CYP creates a more enriched and clarified agenda. It ensured that both CYP and researchers underwent personal or professional growth and development, it created a connection between the people involved, awareness about the importance of involving CYP and it ensured that the people involved had a positive experience. The participants were unable to indicate the academic impact of their PRAs, but they did understand the key factors for creating it. In addition, the need to measure impact was highlighted, with a particular focus on assessing individual impact.

DISCUSSION

Our study outlines the diverse subthemes of impact that arise from involving CYP in developing PRAs. Despite the potential of research agendas to amplify CYP voices, only a minority of researchers strategized post-PPI activities ensuring impactful outcomes, prompting the need for thorough evaluation of various impact forms and consistent alignment with the overarching goal of transforming the research field.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We involved VET students in the data analysis and interpretation phase by forming a young person advisory group. The data analysis of the interviews analysed by the VET students revealed four distinct themes: 1. Learnt new knowledge. 2. Learnt to collaborate. 3. Learnt to listen. 4. Assessment of the individual impact.

A Decade of Efforts to Add Value to Child Health Research Practices

OBJECTIVE

To identify practices that add value to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research and reduce research waste.

STUDY DESIGN

In order to categorize the contributions of members of Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health network, we developed a novel Child Health Improving Research Practices (CHIRP) framework comprised of 5 domains meant to counteract avoidable child health research waste and improve quality: 1) address research questions relevant to children, their families, clinicians, and researchers; 2) apply appropriate research design, conduct and analysis; 3) ensure efficient research oversight and regulation; 4) Provide accessible research protocols and reports; and 5) develop unbiased and usable research reports, including 17 responsible research practice recommendations. All child health research relevant publications by the 48 original StaR standards' authors over the last decade were identified, and main topic areas were categorized using this framework.

RESULTS

A total of 247 publications were included in the final sample: 100 publications (41%) in domain 1 (3 recommendations), 77 publications (31%) in domain 2 (3), 35 publications (14%) in domain 3 (4), 20 publications (8%) in domain 4 (4), and 15 publications (6%) in domain 5 (3). We identified readily implementable "responsible" research practices to counter child health research waste and improve quality, especially in the areas of patients and families' engagement throughout the research process, developing Core Outcome Sets, and addressing ethics and regulatory oversight issues.

CONCLUSION

While most of the practices are readily implementable, increased awareness of methodological issues and wider guideline uptake is needed to improve child health research. The CHIRP Framework can be used to guide responsible research practices that add value to child health research.

Research priorities for children's cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.

DESIGN

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

SETTING

UK health service and community.

METHODS

A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.

PARTICIPANTS

Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population.

RESULTS

Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children's surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was 'can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?'

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified research priorities for children's cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

What matters to you? Engaging with children in the James Lind Alliance Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership

BACKGROUND

Previous priority setting exercises have sought to involve children, but in the final reporting, it is evident that few children had been engaged through the process. A primary aim in the Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership was to find out from children what they want research to focus on. We report on our experience to inform methods of engagement with children in future James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships and similar exercises.

METHODS

We followed the James Lind Alliance process, collecting and shortlisting questions via online surveys with adult survivors of childhood cancer, carers, and professionals, and holding a final workshop. Alongside this, a parallel process to collect and prioritise questions from children was undertaken. We created animations for parents/carers to explain the project and surveys to children, gathered questions via online surveys and held a workshop with children to identify their priorities.

RESULTS

Sixty-one children and young people with cancer and 10 siblings, aged 3-21 years, submitted 252 potential questions/topics via the surveys. Submissions were refined into 24 summary questions. These questions were discussed at a workshop with eight children; they also added more questions on topics of importance to them. Workshop participants prioritised the Top 5 questions; top priority was, 'How can we make being in hospital a better experience for children and young people? (like having better food, internet, toys, and open visiting so other family members can be more involved in the child's care)'. The Top 5 also included cancer prevention, treatments closer to home, early diagnosis, and emotional support. These questions were taken to the final workshop at which the Top 10 priorities were decided, all five children's priorities were reflected in the final Top 10.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that it is possible to successfully involve children directly in setting priorities for future research. Future priority setting exercises on topics relevant to children, should seek to include their views. The Children's Cancer Top 10 priorities reflect the voices of children and should inform the funding of future research.

Scoping the Priorities and Concerns of Parents: Infodemiology Study of Posts on Mumsnet and Reddit

BACKGROUND

Health technology innovation is increasingly supported by a bottom-up approach to priority setting, aiming to better reflect the concerns of its intended beneficiaries. Web-based forums provide parents with an outlet to share concerns, advice, and information related to parenting and the health and well-being of their children. They provide a rich source of data on parenting concerns and priorities that could inform future child health research and innovation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to identify common concerns expressed on 2 major web-based forums and cluster these to identify potential family health concern topics as indicative priority areas for future research and innovation.

METHODS

We text-mined the r/Parenting subreddit (69,846 posts) and the parenting section of Mumsnet (99,848 posts) to create a large corpus of posts. A generative statistical model (latent Dirichlet allocation) was used to identify the most discussed topics in the corpus, and content analysis was applied to identify the parenting concerns found in a subset of posts.

RESULTS

A model with 25 topics produced the highest coherence and a wide range of meaningful parenting concern topics. The most frequently expressed parenting concerns are related to their child's sleep, self-care, eating (and food), behavior, childcare context, and the parental context including parental conflict. Topics directly associated with infants, such as potty training and bottle feeding, were more common on Mumsnet, while parental context and screen time were more common on r/Parenting.

CONCLUSIONS

Latent Dirichlet allocation topic modeling can be applied to gain a rapid, yet meaningful overview of parent concerns expressed on a large and diverse set of social media posts and used to complement traditional insight gathering methods. Parents framed their concerns in terms of children's everyday health concerns, generating topics that overlap significantly with established family health concern topics. We provide evidence of the range of family health concerns found at these sources and hope this can be used to generate material for use alongside traditional insight gathering methods.

Identifying Research Priorities to Promote the Well-Being of Family Caregivers of Canadians with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities: A Pilot Delphi Study

Current programming and resources aimed at supporting the well-being of family caregivers often fail to address considerations unique to those caring for people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDDs). As a result, many caregivers of people with IDD feel isolated, stressed, and burnt out. A targeted research agenda informed by key stakeholders is needed and would allow research teams to coordinate resources, talents, and efforts to progress family caregiver well-being research in this area quickly and effectively. To address this aim, this pilot study used a Delphi design based on 2 rounds of questionnaires. In round 1, 19 stakeholders (18 females, 1 male), including 12 family caregivers, 3 rehabilitation providers, 2 researchers, and 2 organizational representatives, identified broad areas for caregiver well-being research. After collating the responses from round 1, stakeholders were asked to rank whether each area was considered a research priority in round 2. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Eighteen stakeholders completed the round 2 survey (1 caregiver did not complete the round 2 survey), after which a consensus was reached. Stakeholders identified nine broad priorities, including system-level programs and services, models of care, health promotion, social inclusion, equity and diversity, capacity building, care planning along the lifespan, and balancing formal and natural community-based supports. Although preliminary in nature, the research priorities generated using an inclusive and systematic process may inform future efforts to promote the well-being of caregivers of Canadians with IDD.

Priority setting for children and young people with chronic conditions and disabilities

BACKGROUND

The aim of this project was to identify the top 10 priorities for childhood chronic conditions and disability (CCD) research from the perspectives of children and young people with lived experience, their parents and caregivers and the professionals who work with them.

METHODS

We conducted a three-stage study based on the James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership methods. It comprised two online surveys (n = 200; n = 201) and a consensus workshop (n = 21) with these three stakeholder groups in Australia.

RESULTS

In the first stage, 456 responses were submitted, which were coded and collapsed into 40 overarching themes. In the second stage, 20 themes were shortlisted, which were further refined in stage 3, before the top 10 priorities being selected. Of these, the top three priorities were improving awareness and inclusion in all aspects of their life (school, work and social relationships), improving access to treatments and support and improving the process of diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The top 10 priorities identified reflect the need to focus on the individual, health systems and social aspects of the CCD experience when conducting research in this area.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was guided by three Advisory Groups, comprising (1) young people living with CCD; (2) parents and caregivers of a child or young person with CCD and (3) professionals working with children and young people with CCD. These groups met several times across the course of the project and provided input into study aims, materials, methods and data interpretation and reporting. Additionally, the lead author and seven members of the author group have lived and experienced CCD.

Setting Patient-Centered Priorities for Cardiovascular Disease in Central Appalachia: Engaging Stakeholder Experts to Develop a Research Agenda

The disproportionate burden of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and associated risk factors continues to exist in the Central Appalachian Region (CAR) of the United States. Previous studies to gather data about patient-centered care for CVD in the region were conducted through focus group discussions. There have not been any studies that used a collaborative framework where patients, providers, and community stakeholders were engaged as panelists. The objective of this study was to identify patient-centered research priorities for CVD in the CAR. We used a modified Delphi approach to administer questionnaires to forty-two stakeholder experts in six states representing the CAR between the fall of 2018 and the summer of 2019. Their responses were analyzed for rankings and derived priorities by research gaps. Six of the fifteen research priorities identified were patient-centered. These patient-centered priorities included shorter wait times for appointments; educating patients at their level; empowering patients to take responsibility for their health; access to quality providers; heart disease specialists for rural areas; and lifestyle changes. The participants' commitments to identify patient-centered research priorities indicate the potential to engage in community-based collaboration to address the burden of CVD in the CAR.

Designing an mHealth Roadmap for the Journey to Self-Management: A Qualitative Study with Adolescents and Young Adults Living with Chronic Illness

OBJECTIVES

Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with chronic illnesses often struggle with illness self-management. The objective of this study is to understand how AYA with various chronic illnesses develop self-management skills and which mobile health (mHealth) strategies they believe could be helpful.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, between 16 to 20 years old, living with at least one chronic illness (N = 19), between 2018 and 2019 in Los Angeles, CA. Three coders completed thematic coding to understand how AYA develop and maintain self-management skills, to inform the development of mHealth interventions appropriate across a variety of chronic conditions.

RESULTS

Results suggest that AYA develop self-management skills through several strategies, including (1) getting organized, (2) making it work for me and (3) keeping the right mentality. AYA described developing these strategies through: (1) receiving social support, (2) accessing helpful tools and technologies, and (3) going through a maturation process. They provided recommendations for mHealth intervention developers.

DISCUSSION

The results suggest that an appealing mHealth intervention could support AYA patients in proactively acquiring self-management skills and prevent having to rely on trial and error or uneven access to guidance and support. Interventions should be responsive to individual technology preferences and practices.

Research priority setting in plastic and reconstructive surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The health research agenda has historically been led by researchers; however, their priorities may not necessarily align with those of patients, caregivers and clinicians. Research priority setting initiatives identify and prioritise topics which lack evidence. This is particularly important in plastic surgery, a speciality lacking high-quality evidence to definitively answer many common clinical questions. Research priorities direct research activity and funding, so their selection process must be representative and transparent. This review appraised all priority setting initiatives in plastic surgery using the reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE).

METHODS

OVID Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) repository were searched (inception - 11/06/21) using search terms for 'research priority setting' and 'plastic and reconstructive surgery'. Dual-author screening and data extraction were conducted, according to PRISMA.

RESULTS

Of 3899 de-duplicated citations, 17 were included. Most studies were conducted in national (14/17), high-income (16/17) settings. More priority setting initiatives focussed on burns (6/17) and hand surgery (4/17) than other subspecialties. The JLA (5/17) and qualitative (5/17) approaches were most used for prioritisation, followed by Delphi techniques (3/17), other surveys (3/17) and mixed methods (1/17). A minority included patient (8/17) or multi-disciplinary (8/17) stakeholders. Few reported strategies for implementing research priorities (6/17) or measuring their impact (2/17).

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders from lower-income countries are underrepresented in priority setting initiatives for plastic surgery, despite the global burden of disease. Future studies should recruit more patient and multidisciplinary stakeholders, to achieve meaningful consensus. Clear implementation strategies are needed to maximise impact.

Involving children and young people in paediatric research priority setting: a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is twofold: first, to describe the methods used when involving children and young people (CYP) in developing a paediatric research agenda and, second, to evaluate how the existing literature describes the impact of involving CYP. We distinguish three forms of impact: impact on the research agenda (focused impact), impact on researchers and CYP (diffuse impact) and impact on future research (research impact).

DESIGN

A narrative review of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar was conducted from October 2016 to January 2022. The included studies involved at least one CYP in developing a research agenda and were published in English.

RESULTS

22 studies were included; the CYP involved were aged between 6 years and 25 years. Little variation was found in the methods used to involve them. The methods used were James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach (n=16), focus groups (n=2), workshop (n=2), research prioritisation by affected communities (n=1) and combined methods (n=1). Impact was rarely described: focused impact in nine studies, diffuse impact in zero studies and research impact in three studies.

CONCLUSION

This study concludes that the JLA approach is most frequently used to involve CYP and that all methods used to involve them are rarely evaluated. It also concludes that the reported impact of involving CYPs is incomplete. This study implies that to convince sceptical researchers of the benefits of involving CYPs and to justify the costs, more attention should be paid to reporting these impacts.

The Your Rheum story: involvement of young people in rheumatology research

Until recently, young people too often fell into the gaps between services due to restrictive age criteria. Furthermore, their voice was too infrequently heard or was represented by proxies in the form of their caregivers or by adults recalling their youth. The lack of young person involvement in adolescent health research including the arena of paediatric and adolescent chronic disease has been highlighted in current literature. However, the involvement of young people at all stages of health research, from priority setting through to dissemination, is widely advocated. Furthermore, such involvement is considered to be important ethically and, most important of all, has been called for by young people themselves. Young people have clear views about research and these views potentially enhance our understanding of how young people form opinions about research. These opinions in turn informs researchers how to best engage young people (including recruitment and retention) in research. Such involvement of young people ensures that research questions, project methodologies and/or interventions are truly resonant with their lives. This paper describes the development of a national youth advisory group in UK rheumatology, an important addition to the evolving evidence base to support the involvement of young people in rheumatology research. The paper is written with two young people who are members of this group, providing them with an opportunity to learn more about a key component of research—writing papers for publication.

Research in child and adolescent anxiety and depression: treatment uncertainties prioritised by youth and professionals

Background: A starting point for evaluating the effectiveness of treatments should be to identify evidence gaps. Furthermore, such evaluations should consider the perspectives of patients, clinicians and carers to ensure relevance and potentially influence future research initiatives. Methods: Our approach, inspired by the James Lind Alliance methods, involved three steps. First, we performed a document analysis by identifying interventions and outcomes in two recently published overviews of systematic reviews, which summarised the effects of interventions for anxiety and depression in children and adolescents. Second, we surveyed children and adolescents with personal experiences of depression or anxiety as well as clinicians, and asked them to suggest treatments and outcomes associated with uncertainty. Finally, we facilitated a consensus process where clinicians and youth mental health patient representatives were invited to prioritise research uncertainties in separate consensus processes. Results: The survey included 674 respondents who reported a total of 1267 uncertainties. Independent coding by four investigators revealed 134 suggestions for treatments of anxiety, 90 suggestions for treatments of depression, 84 for outcomes of interventions for anxiety and 71 suggestions for outcomes of interventions for depression. Two separate priority setting workshops with eight clinicians and ten youth resulted in four independent top ten priority lists. Conclusion: Top ten lists of treatments and outcome domains of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents was identified by youth and clinicians. The results may influence the research agenda, and ultimately benefit patients.

Research priorities for children with neurological impairment and medical complexity in high-income countries

AIM

To identify the highest-priority clinical research areas related to children with neurological impairment and medical complexity among clinicians and caregivers.

METHOD

A modified, three-stage Delphi study using online surveys and guided by a steering committee was completed. In round 1, clinicians and family caregivers suggested clinical topics and related questions that require research to support this subgroup of children. After refinement of the suggestions by the steering committee, participants contributed to 1 (family caregivers) or 2 (clinicians) subsequent rounds to develop a prioritized list.

RESULTS

A diverse international expert panel consisting of 49 clinicians and 12 family caregivers provided 601 responses. Responses were distilled into 26 clinical topics comprising 126 related questions. The top clinical topics prioritized for research were irritability and pain, child mental health, disorders of tone, polypharmacy, sleep, aspiration, behavior, dysautonomia, and feeding intolerance. The clinician expert panel also prioritized 10 specific research questions.

INTERPRETATION

Study findings support a research agenda for children with neurological impairment and medical complexity focused on addressing clinical questions, prioritized by an international group of clinicians and caregivers.

Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland – Eine systematische Analyse von Publikationen der physioscience der letzten 10 Jahre

Hintergrund Forschungsprioritäten können dazu beitragen, Evidenz in den Bereichen zu entwickeln, die für Patient*innen und Kliniker*innen am wichtigsten sind. Forschungsprioritäten werden jedoch in der biomedizinischen Forschung nur unzureichend berücksichtigt.

Ziel Beschreibung der Berücksichtigung von Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland.

Methode Analyse von physiotherapeutischen Berichten aus Deutschland, die zwischen 2011 und 2020 in der Fachzeitschrift physioscience publiziert wurden. Für jeden eingeschlossenen Bericht wurde die primäre Forschungsfrage und/oder der Hauptgegenstandsbereich identifiziert und, falls möglich, einem spezifischen Gesundheitszustand zugeordnet. Danach wurde für jeden Bericht geprüft, ob eine gesundheitszustandsspezifische Forschungspriorität (von der James Lind Alliance oder aus wissenschaftlichen Datenbanken) bzw. eine der Top 26 der physiotherapiespezifischen Forschungsprioritäten des britischen Berufsverbandes „The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP)“ aus 2018 adressiert wurde. Die Datenanalyse erfolgte deskriptiv.

Ergebnisse Es konnten 78 Berichte in die Analyse eingeschlossen werden. Die häufigsten Studientypen waren Übersichtsarbeiten (17/78, 22 %), Beobachtungsstudien (16/78, 21 %) und Umfragen (13/78, 17 %). Für die Analyse der gesundheitszustandsspezifischen Forschungsprioritäten konnten 51 Berichte berücksichtigt werden. In 51 % dieser Berichte (26/51) wurde eine der 10 wichtigsten Forschungsprioritäten des jeweiligen Themengebiets adressiert. In den übrigen Berichten wurde keine gesundheitszustandsspezifische Forschungspriorität berücksichtigt (13/51, 25 %) oder die Priorität gehörte nicht zu den Top Ten (12/51, 24 %).

Für die Analyse der physiotherapeutischen Forschungsprioritäten wurden alle 78 Berichte berücksichtigt. In 21 % dieser Berichte (16/78) wurde eine Top-Ten-Priorität adressiert. In den übrigen Berichten wurde eine weniger wichtige Priorität adressiert (Listenplatz 11–26; 25/78, 32 %) oder das Forschungsthema des Berichts gehörte nicht zu den Top 26 (37/78, 47 %).

Schlussfolgerung Die vorliegende Studie liefert erste Hinweise darauf, dass Forschungsprioritäten in der physiotherapeutischen Forschung in Deutschland nur unzureichend berücksichtigt werden. Ein erheblicher Teil der Forschung scheint somit an den Bedürfnissen von Patient*innen und Kliniker*innen vorbeizugehen. Die Berücksichtigung existierender Forschungsprioritäten und die Entwicklung nationaler Forschungsprioritäten für die Physiotherapie in Deutschland könnten dazu beitragen, den Nutzen der physiotherapeutischen Forschung für die öffentliche Gesundheit zu vergrößern.

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas.

MAIN BODY

We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area.

CONCLUSION

Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

Research agenda setting with children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Lessons learned

AIM

The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the research priorities of Dutch children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) as well as researching how children can be involved.

BACKGROUND

Several health research agendas have successfully been developed with adults but rarely with children. Children are still seldom recognized as possessing credible knowledge about their own body and life. This research project with focus group discussions and interviews with children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) was an innovative addition to a nationwide prioritization of research questions of patients with JIA, their carers and health care professionals, based on the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology.

RESULTS

Children with JIA appreciated being invited to give their opinion on JIA research prioritization as knowledgeable actors. They have clear views on what topics need most attention. They want more insight on how to medically and socially treat JIA so that they can better fulfil their aspirations at school, later in work and with their relationships.

CONCLUSION

We have identified the Top 5 research priorities for children with JIA. Most priorities are unique and differ from the priorities of the adolescents and young adults, parents and healthcare professionals in the main JLA priority setting exercise. Ultimately, two of the children's priorities were included in the final JLA Top 10.

Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

This scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health-as previous reviews have done-but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.

RESULTS

The scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.

CONCLUSION

By mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.

"We Have All This Knowledge to Give, So Use Us as a Resource": Partnering with Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors to Determine Consumer-Led Research Priorities

Purpose: Involvement of adolescent and young adult (AYAs) cancer survivors as consumers in research is increasingly encouraged, yet few studies have identified the feasibility and acceptability of methods used to involve them. We aimed to identify: (1) How feasible and acceptable is a consumer-driven, workshop-based research priority-setting approach? And (2) what research priorities do Australian AYA consumers endorse? Methods: AYA cancer survivors diagnosed 15-30 years old and currently younger than 35 years were invited to participate. The AYAs completed a pre-workshop survey to rank their top three priorities from the United Kingdom-based James Lind Alliance list, participated in a 90-minute focus group, and completed a post-workshop evaluation survey. We assessed the workshop feasibility by reviewing considerations, challenges, and enablers of success in the planning and conduct processes. Acceptability was assessed through participants' evaluation surveys and facilitators' informal reflections. The top three priorities were determined from pre-workshop surveys and focus group data. Results: Six survivors participated (M age = 24.2 years, M = 5 years post-treatment, 83% female). All reported that the workshop was an acceptable way to engage with researchers. Costs and recruitment challenges limited the workshop's feasibility. The AYAs' top priority was: What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning, and mental health during and after treatment? Discussion: The AYA survivors found our workshop to be an acceptable way to engage in research priority-setting. However, the feasibility of this approach depends on the resources available to researchers. Future research is needed to define the optimal method of engagement: What is most acceptable for AYAs and feasible for researchers?

Leveraging a qualitative data repository to integrate patient and caregiver perspectives into clinical research

Understanding patient and caregiver experiences is a critical component of the conception, design, and implementation of clinical research studies. The "Database of Individual Patient Experiences" (DIPEx) is an innovative, evidence-based approach for eliciting rich information about health experiences. We conducted a formative evaluation with 14 pediatric oncology researchers to assess the value of using data from a DIPEx study on patient and caregiver experiences with childhood cancer to inform patient-centered research in pediatric oncology. Participants identified barriers to incorporating patient perspectives and experiences into their research and how the DIPEx approach could be leveraged to facilitate this practice.

Research Questions that Matter to Us: priorities of young people with chronic illnesses and their caregivers

AIM

The rising number of children carrying chronic disease with them into adulthood presents the research community with an obligation to address their unique needs. Authentic involvement of individuals and communities directly affected by the condition being studied ensures that research answers the questions of those most affected. Our aim was to identify the highest priority research questions of young people living with chronic illness and their caregivers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using the Research Prioritization by Affected Communities (RPAC) method. Participants were recruited from two hospitals and two community organizations to participate in focus groups.

RESULTS

Twenty three participants developed and prioritized 300 potentially researchable questions. Thematic analysis of the priority research topics revealed three health dimensions of chronic illness (physical health, social-emotional health and navigating the health care system) and two cross-cutting dimensions (living with a chronic illness and future with a chronic illness).

CONCLUSION

Young people experiencing different chronic conditions were able to achieve consensus on the same set of condition-agnostic research priorities, age and role influenced research priorities. We report these research priorities to inform and influence local and national research agendas and funding priorities.

IMPACT

Patients and caregivers affected by different chronic illnesses were able to achieve consensus on condition-agnostic research priorities. Age and role influenced research priorities. Questions posed by young people experiencing different chronic conditions fell under three themes (physical, social-emotional and health care system) and two cross-cutting dimensions (living with a chronic illness and future with a chronic illness). Use of the Research Prioritization by Affected Communities (RPAC) method, which begins with the patient's lived experiences, provided nuanced insights into the complexity of living with a chronic illness and surfaced under-studied research topics to guide future research investment.

Dutch patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals generate first nationwide research agenda for juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Involving the end-users of scientific research (patients, carers and clinicians) in setting research priorities is important to formulate research questions that truly make a difference and are in tune with the needs of patients. We therefore aimed to generate a national research agenda for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) together with patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals through conducting a nationwide survey among these stakeholders.

METHODS

The James Lind Alliance method was used, tailored with additional focus groups held to involve younger patients. First, research questions were gathered through an online and hardcopy survey. The received questions that were in scope were summarised and a literature search was performed to verify that questions were unanswered. Questions were ranked in the interim survey, and the final top 10 was chosen during a prioritisation workshop.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-eight respondents submitted 604 questions, of which 519 were in scope. Of these 604 questions, 81 were generated in the focus groups with younger children. The questions were summarised into 53 summary questions. An evidence checking process verified that all questions were unanswered. A total of 303 respondents prioritised the questions in the interim survey. Focus groups with children generated a top 5 of their most important questions. Combining this top 5 with the top 10s of patients, carers, and clinicians led to a top 21. Out of these, the top 10 research priorities were chosen during a final workshop. Research into pain and fatigue, personalised treatment strategies and aetiology were ranked high in the Top 10.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this study, the top 10 research priorities for JIA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians were identified to inform researchers and research funders of the research topics that matter most to them. The top priority involves the treatment and mechanisms behind persisting pain and fatigue when the disease is in remission.

Association Between Caregivers' Family Management and Quality of Life in Children with Chronic Disease in Southern Thailand

PURPOSE

Caring for children with chronic diseases, caregivers have to manage their child's daily life to prevent complications and improve their quality of life. This study investigated family management of children with chronic diseases, quality of life of children, and correlation between family management of caregivers and quality of life of children as perceived by the caregivers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study collected data from 200 pairs of caregivers and children with asthma, anemia, and thalassemia aged 5 to 12 years after receiving treatment and follow-up in the pediatric outpatient department of the tertiary hospital, June to November 2020. Research instruments comprised a Family Management Measure (FaMM) and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL 4.0). Data were analyzed using descriptive and Spearman rank correlation coefficient statistics.

RESULTS

The caregivers of children obtained a mean score on family management of 166.88 (S.D.= 11.32). The quality of life of children with chronic illness had a mean score of 66.59 (S.D.= 18.63). Correlation analysis revealed that easy family management of the caregivers had a positive correlation with the quality of life of children with chronic diseases. On the contrary, difficulty in family management negatively correlated with the quality of life of the children.

CONCLUSION

Most caregivers could have easy family management in caring for the children. In summary, easy family management will allow children with chronic illness to receive decent care from their caregivers, contributing to improved quality of life.

Identifying integrated health services and social care research priorities in kidney disease in Wales: research prioritisation exercise

OBJECTIVES

To identify the shared research priorities of patients, caregivers and multidisciplinary renal health and social care professionals across Wales for integrated renal health and social care in Wales.

DESIGN

Research priority setting exercise adapted from the James Lind Alliance national priority setting partnership framework in UK healthcare.

SETTING

Two workshops: one in North Wales with patients, caregivers and multidisciplinary renal health and social care professionals and one in South Wales with the Welsh Renal Clinical Network (commissioners of renal services in Wales). Additional input provided from stakeholders via email correspondence and face to face communications.

PARTICIPANTS

Academics n=14, patients n=16, family/carers n=6, multidisciplinary renal healthcare professionals n=40, local authority councils n=3, renal charities n=6 wider third sector organisations n=8, renal industries n=4, Welsh government social care n=3, renal service commissioners n=8.

RESULTS

38 research priority questions grouped into 10 themes were agreed. The themes included: (1) integrating health and social care, (2) education, (3) acute kidney injury, (4) chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease, (5) transplantation, (6) dialysis, (7) personalised medicines, (8) cross-cutting priorities, (9) specific social contexts and (10) transitional services and children. Research questions were broad and covered a range of health and social care topics. Patient and professional perspectives broadly overlapped. Research priority setting activities revealed gaps in knowledge in overall service provision and potential areas for service improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Mapping priorities in health services and social care highlighted the research needed to support renal health services delivery and commissioning in Wales.

Factors Affecting Loss to Follow-Up in Children and Adolescents with Chronic Endocrine Conditions

OBJECTIVE

Most children with endocrine diseases require long-term continuity of care. We investigated the prevalence of loss to follow-up (LTFU) in pediatric patients with chronic endocrine diseases and the risk factors associated with LTFU.

METHODS

This observational cohort study included all children with chronic endocrine diseases included in the database of a single academic pediatric care center over a period of 8 years. LTFU was defined as a lack of attendance at clinical visits for over 2 years, for unknown reasons.

RESULTS

LTFU was recorded for 154 of the 1,067 patients included (14%). Median age at diagnosis was 5.8 (0.3-11.8) vs. 1.2 (0.0-6.9) years, and age at last visit was 14.1 (9.7-16.1) vs. 11.7 (6.1-15.8) years, for the LTFU and no-LTFU groups, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the risk of LTFU increased with age at diagnosis (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.12-1.24) and was higher for patients diagnosed before 2006 (vs. after 2006; OR 4.80; 95% CI 3.00-7.66), with fewer visits in the last 3 years (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.65-0.80; p < 0.0001) and a lower health insurance classification (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.10-2.89; p = 0.02). The risk of LTFU was higher for patients with isolated growth hormone deficiency than for those with other endocrine conditions, such as multiple pituitary deficiencies, hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, Turner syndrome, or thyroid, adrenal, or gonadal disorders (OR 5.24; 95% CI 1.13-24.37; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first epidemiological data for LTFU in children and adolescents with chronic endocrine diseases. It should facilitate the targeting of interventions to improve adherence to medical care and healthcare organization during the pediatric period.

Identifying Research Priorities among Patients and Families of Children with Rheumatic Diseases Living in the United States

Objective

To improve the quality and participation in pediatric rheumatology research, patient-prioritized studies should be emphasized. We collaborated with United States–based pediatric rheumatology advocacy organizations to survey patients and caregivers of children with rheumatic diseases to identify what research topics were most important to them.

Methods

We conducted Web-based surveys and focus groups (FG) of patients and caregivers of children with juvenile myositis (JM), juvenile arthritis (JA), and childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE). Surveys were emailed to listservs and posted to social media sites of JM, JA, and cSLE patient advocacy organizations. An initial survey asked open-ended questions about patient/caregiver research preferences. Responses were further characterized through FG. A final ranking survey asked respondents to rank from a list of research themes the 7 most important to them.

Results

There were 365 JM respondents, 44 JA respondents, and 32 cSLE respondents to the final ranking survey. The top research priority for JM was finding new treatments, and for JA and cSLE, the priority was understanding genetic/environmental etiology. The 3 prioritized research themes common across all disease groups were medication side effects, disease flare, and disease etiology.

Conclusion

Patient-centered research prioritization is recognized as valuable in conducting high-quality research, yet there is a paucity of data describing patient/family preferences, especially in pediatrics. We used multimodal methodologies to assess current patient/caregiver research priorities to help frame the agenda for the pediatric rheumatology research community. Patients and caregivers from all surveyed disease groups prioritized the study of medication side effects, disease flares, and disease etiology.

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

BACKGROUND

Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved.

RESULTS

From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples.

CONCLUSIONS

The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Joint production of research priorities to improve the lives of those with childhood onset conditions that impair learning: the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for 'learning difficulties'

OBJECTIVES

To engage children and young people with conditions that impair learning, their parents/carers and the health, education, social work and third sector professionals to identify and prioritise research questions for learning difficulties.

DESIGN

Prospective surveys and consensus meeting guided by methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.

SETTING

Scotland.

METHODS

The Priority Setting Partnership came together through discussion and collaboration between the University of Edinburgh, Scottish charity The Salvesen Mindroom Centre and partners in the National Health Service, education services and the third sector. A steering group was established. Charity and professional organisations were recruited. Suggested questions were gathered in an open survey and from research recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Guidance. Suggested questions and recommendations were summarised into 40 indicative research questions. These indicative questions were verified as uncertainties from research evidence. Respondents each nominated up to 10 questions as research priorities in an interim survey. The 25 highest-ranked questions from the interim survey were prioritised at the final priority setting workshop.

PARTICIPANTS

367 people submitted suggestions (29 individuals affected by learning difficulties, 147 parents/carers and 191 professionals). 361 people participated in the interim prioritisation (41 individuals, 125 parents/carers and 195 professionals). 25 took part in the final workshop (5 young people, 6 parents and 14 professionals).

RESULTS

Top three research priorities related to (1) upskilling education professionals, (2) best education and community environment and (3) multidisciplinary practice and working with parents. Top 10 included best early interventions, upskilling health, social and third sector professionals, support for families, identifying early signs and symptoms, effective assessments and strategies against stigma and bullying and to live independent lives.

CONCLUSIONS

Results will now be a resource for researchers and funders to understand and resolve learning difficulties and improve the lives of those affected with childhood onset conditions that result in learning difficulties.

Partnering For Pain: a Priority Setting Partnership to identify patient-oriented research priorities for pediatric chronic pain in Canada

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain affects 1-3 million Canadian children and adolescents and their families. The primary objective of the Partnering For Pain project was to collaboratively identify the top 10 research priorities in pediatric chronic pain.

METHODS

Partnering For Pain took a patient-oriented research approach and followed a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to identify the top research priorities in pediatric chronic pain according to people with lived experience (patients), family members and health care providers (clinicians). The PSP was completed in 4 phases between May and December 2018: 1) national survey of stakeholders, including those with lived experience with pediatric chronic pain, family members and clinicians who treat children with chronic pain, to gather priorities, 2) data processing, 3) interim prioritization by invited patients, family members and clinicians (former research participants or identified through pediatric chronic pain programs, patient partner organizations and steering committee member networks) and 4) in-person priority-setting workshop involving patients, family members and clinicians identified via steering committee networks and partner organizations, with evaluation of patient engagement. The process was led by a national steering committee of patient and parent partners, researchers and clinicians engaged in codesign, analysis and translation of project findings.

RESULTS

In phase 1, 215 Canadians (86 patients [40.0%], 56 family members [26.0%] and 73 clinicians [34.0%]) submitted 540 potential priorities that were developed into 112 unique research questions (phase 2). Of the 112 questions, 63 were rated for importance by 57 participants (19 patients [33%], 17 family members [30%] and 21 clinicians [37%]) in phase 3. In phase 4, 20 participants (6 patients [30%], 6 family members [30%] and 8 clinicians [40%]) discussed the 25 most highly rated questions and reached consensus on the final top 10.

INTERPRETATION

The final priorities address pediatric chronic pain prevention, impact and treatment, as well as delivery, access and coordination of care. The priorities reflect a directed and collaborative call to action to improve existing pediatric pain research and care.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 children and teens. This means that 1-3 million Canadian youth deal with pain lasting months to years. This pain gets in the way of being active, sleeping, going to school, and getting along with friends and family. Youth with chronic pain and their families are experts on what it's like to live with pain, but, until now, research has not asked what issues they care about most. The goal of the Partnering For Pain project was to develop a list of the 10 most important things we still need to learn about chronic pain during childhood according to people who live with it, their families and health care providers. We did this in 4 steps: 1) a survey with 215 people who shared 540 concerns they have about chronic pain in childhood, 2) turning those concerns into questions that can be answered by research, 3) a survey with 57 people who ranked how important each research question was and 4) an in-person discussion with 20 people who chose the top 10 research priorities. Each step included Canadians who have had chronic pain during childhood, their families and health care providers. The final top 10 list has questions about how to better prevent and care for children and teens with chronic pain. These priorities make sure that future research focuses on what is most important to people who will use it in their everyday lives. Project video: https://youtu.be/wA-RwrFiSPk. Project website: www.partneringforpain.com.

Research priorities for childhood chronic conditions: a workshop report

BACKGROUND

Chronic conditions are the leading cause of mortality, morbidity and disability in children. However, children and caregivers are rarely involved in identifying research priorities, which may limit the value of research in supporting patient-centred practice and policy.

OBJECTIVE

To identify priorities of patients, caregivers and health professionals for research in childhood chronic conditions and describe the reason for their choices.

SETTING

An Australian paediatric hospital and health consumer organisations.

METHODS

Recruited participants (n=73) included patients aged 8 to 14 years with a chronic condition (n=3), parents/caregivers of children aged 0 to 18 years with a chronic condition (n=19), representatives from consumer organisations (n=13) and health professionals including clinicians, researches (n=38) identified and discussed research priorities. Transcripts were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight research questions were identified. Five themes underpinned participants' priorities: maintaining a sense of normality (enabling participation in school, supporting social functioning, promoting understanding and acceptance), empowering self-management and partnership in care (overcoming communication barriers, gaining knowledge and skills, motivation for treatment adherence, making informed decisions, access and understanding of complementary and alternative therapies),strengthening ability to cope (learning to have a positive outlook, preparing for home care management, transitioning to adult services), broadening focus to family (supporting sibling well-being, parental resilience and financial loss, alleviating caregiver burden), and improving quality and scope of health and social care (readdressing variability and inequities, preventing disease complications and treatment side effects, identifying risk factors, improving long-term outcomes, harnessing technology, integrating multidisciplinary services).

CONCLUSION

Research priorities identified by children, caregivers and health professionals emphasise a focus on life participation, psychosocial well-being, impact on family and quality of care. These priorities may be used by funding and policy organisations in establishing a paediatric research agenda.

Dutch juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients, carers and clinicians create a research agenda together following the James Lind Alliance method: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Research on Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) should support patients, caregivers/parents (carers) and clinicians to make important decisions in the consulting room and eventually to improve the lives of patients with JIA. Thus far these end-users of JIA-research have rarely been involved in the prioritisation of future research.

MAIN BODY

Dutch organisations of patients, carers and clinicians will collaboratively develop a research agenda for JIA, following the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology. In a 'Priority Setting Partnership' (PSP), they will gradually establish a top 10 list of the most important unanswered research questions for JIA. In this process the input from clinicians, patients and their carers will be equally valued. Additionally, focus groups will be organised to involve young people with JIA. The involvement of all contributors will be monitored and evaluated. In this manner, the project will contribute to the growing body of literature on how to involve young people in agenda setting in a meaningful way.

CONCLUSION

A JIA research agenda established through the JLA method and thus co-created by patients, carers and clinicians will inform researchers and research funders about the most important research questions for JIA. This will lead to research that really matters.