Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions

What Gets Measured Gets Managed: A Scoping Review of Musculoskeletal Research Conducted Within Practice-Based Research Networks

ABSTRACT

Musculoskeletal conditions are often managed in primary care settings. To facilitate research and healthcare quality, practice-based research networks offer sustained collaborations between clinicians and researchers. A scoping review was conducted to describe characteristics of practice-based research networks used for musculoskeletal research and musculoskeletal research conducted through practice-based research networks. Practice-based research networks were identified from 1) musculoskeletal-studies identified in OVID Medline, CINAHL, and Embase databases from inception to 5 February 2023 and in ClinicalTrials.gov and 2) from practice-based research network registries and websites. Among active musculoskeletal-focused practice-based research networks (i.e., currently recruiting and conducting research), an assessment of practice-based research network research good practices was performed. After screening 3025 records, 85 studies from 46 unique practice-based research networks met our eligibility criteria. Common conditions studied were low back pain (28%), musculoskeletal conditions not otherwise specified (25%), and osteoarthritis (19%). Thirty-two practice-based research networks (70%) were deemed to be active. Among active musculoskeletal-focused practice-based research networks, best practice data management information was retrievable for most (53%). Because of the scarcity of publicly available information, a large proportion of practice-based research network research good practice items was not assessable. Practice-based research networks have provided an avenue to assess clinical practice and patient outcomes related to musculoskeletal conditions. Further work to increase the transparency of musculoskeletal practice-based research network research practices is warranted.

[DNVF Memorandum: Objectives and Methods of Physical Activity-Related Health Services Research]

The DNVF Memorandum: Objectives and Methods of Physical Activity-Related Health Services Research summarizes, for the first time, the highly interdisciplinary and interprofessional field of physical activity-based health care in the German healthcare system. In addition to providing a conceptual framework and definition of key measures and concepts in physical activity-related health care research, existing research gaps and needs are identified, and methods for advancing this relatively young field of research are described. A particular focus of this study is the relevant outcome parameters and their standardized assessment using established and valid measurement tools. The memorandum aims to establish a general understanding of the complex subject of promoting physical activity and sports therapy in the context of healthcare, to give an impulse to new research initiatives, and to integrate the currently available strong evidence on the effectiveness of physical activity and exercise into healthcare.

Prioritisation of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers: an inter-disciplinary modified Delphi study by the Australia & New Zealand musculoskeletal clinical trials network

BACKGROUND

There is a need to increase the capacity and capability of musculoskeletal researchers to design, conduct, and report high-quality clinical trials. The objective of this study was to identify and prioritise clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Findings will be used to inform development of an e-learning musculoskeletal clinical trials course.

METHODS

A two-round online modified Delphi study was conducted with an inter-disciplinary panel of musculoskeletal researchers from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, representing various career stages and roles, including clinician researchers and consumers with lived experience of musculoskeletal conditions. Round 1 involved panellists nominating 3-10 topics about musculoskeletal trial design and conduct that they believe would be important to include in an e-learning course about musculoskeletal clinical trials. Topics were synthesised and refined. Round 2 asked panellists to rate the importance of all topics (very important, important, not important), as well as select and rank their top 10 most important topics. A rank score was calculated whereby higher scores reflect higher rankings by panellists.

RESULTS

Round 1 was completed by 121 panellists and generated 555 individual topics describing their musculoskeletal trial learning needs. These statements were grouped into 37 unique topics for Round 2, which was completed by 104 panellists. The topics ranked as most important were: (1) defining a meaningful research question (rank score 560, 74% of panellists rated topic as very important); (2) choosing the most appropriate trial design (rank score 410, 73% rated as very important); (3) involving consumers in trial design through to dissemination (rank score 302, 62% rated as very important); (4) bias in musculoskeletal trials and how to minimise it (rank score 299, 70% rated as very important); and (5) choosing the most appropriate control/comparator group (rank score 265, 65% rated as very important).

CONCLUSIONS

This modified Delphi study generated a ranked list of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers. Findings can inform training courses and professional development to improve researcher capabilities and enhance the quality and conduct of musculoskeletal clinical trials.

Research Priorities in the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy Among Diploma Therapists: An International Delphi Study

Introduction Mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) is the most researched approach in musculoskeletal physical therapy and involves classifying patients into sub-groups based on their response to loading strategies. MDT diploma therapists (Dip-MDTs) fully recognize the value of MDT in musculoskeletal physical therapy. MDT is updating its system based on the latest research, but the system has not yet been fully established. Therefore, more research is required to increase the comprehensibility of the system. Thus, we aimed to identify future research priorities of MDT. Methods We conducted a modified Delphi study with three rounds. The Research Advisory Committee (RAC) members (n=7) of the McKenzie Institute International were invited to participate in the initial idea generation round. In the subsequent two consensus rounds, Dip-MDTs (n=299) were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the results of the idea generation round using a five-point Likert scale. The criteria for consensus were mean score ≥4.0, coefficient of variation ≤30%, percent agreement ≥75%, and quartile deviation ≤1. A post-hoc analysis of the consensus was conducted when the number of participants from a certain country exceeded one-third of the total number of participants. Results The participation rates for each round were 57.1%, 52.2%, and 49.8%. The USA accounted for 43.6% and 44.3% of all participants at the two consensus rounds, respectively. Finally, nine items reached consensus in the second consensus round. After the post-hoc analysis, eight items reached consensus: (1) cost-effectiveness, (2) cervical and thoracic spine, (3) extremity classifications, (4) filtered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (5) spinal source classification, (6) centralization and directional preferences, (7) predictive factors for recurrence, and (8) patient education. Conclusion In this study, we identified the research priorities of MDT that would enhance the completion of the MDT system.

What matters to people with chronic musculoskeletal pain consulting general practice? Comparing research priorities across different sectors

OBJECTIVES

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a common condition, often consulted in general practice. Our previous study identified research priorities among people with CMP using a broad recruitment strategy. It is unclear whether these research priorities reflect specific settings, including the population in general practice. Potential dissimilarities may have important implications for future research. Therefore, the study aims to explore potential differences between the previously established research priorities compared to priorities of people with CMP consulting general practice.

METHODS

Eighty-eight people living with CMP (51 females/37 males) from four regions of Denmark were recruited when they consulted their general practitioner. Participants were presented to an online survey and asked to prioritise predefined research themes (n=14) and research questions (n=38). The prioritisations were summarised into a Top-10 research priorities and compared the Top-10 from our previous study.

RESULTS

Treatment (n=57), diagnosis (n=46), cross-sectoral management (n=39) and influence on daily life (n=39) were the most selected research themes. The most prioritised research questions regarded the effectiveness of treatments and cross-sectoral management, improving diagnostic approaches and how pain affects the individuals' mental state. Four out of ten research questions aligned with our previous Top-10.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified several differences in research priorities between people living with CMP from the general population and from general practice. These findings highlight the needs for investigating how different settings influence research prioritisation. This adds important knowledge for researchers and policymakers focusing on future research within the management of CMP.

Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Preventing Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent episodes of neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and trial registries from inception to December 2, 2022. Forward and backward citation searches. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults without neck pain at baseline and compared exercise interventions to no intervention, placebo/sham, attention control, or minimal intervention. Military populations and astronauts were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The certainty of evidence was judged according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 4703 records screened, 5 trials (1722 participants at baseline) were included and eligible for meta-analysis. Most (80%) participants were office workers. Risk of bias was rated as some concerns for 2 trials and high for 3 trials. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise interventions probably reduce the risk of a new episode of neck pain (OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.76) compared to no or minimal intervention in the short-term (≤12 months). The results were not robust to sensitivity analyses for missing outcome data. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence supporting exercise interventions for reducing the risk for an episode of neck pain in the next 12 months. The clinical significance of the effect is unclear. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):1-16. Epub: 8 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12063.

[Need for Action and Research in Psychosomatic and Orthopaedic Rehabilitation from the Point of View of Rehabilitants and Individuals who work in Rehabilitative Care]

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the need for practical action and research in psychosomatic and orthopaedic rehabilitation from the perspective of rehabilitants and individuals who work in rehabilitative care.

METHODS

The project was divided into an identification and a prioritization phase. In the identification phase, 3872 former rehabilitants, 235 employees from three rehabilitation clinics and 31 employees of the German Pension Insurance Oldenburg-Bremen (DRV OL-HB) were invited to participate in a written survey. The participants were asked to name relevant needs for action and research for psychosomatic and orthopaedic rehabilitation. The answers were evaluated qualitatively using an inductively developed coding system. Practical fields of action and research questions were formulated from the categories of the coding system. In the prioritization phase, the identified needs were ranked. For this purpose, 32 rehabilitants were invited to a prioritization workshop and 152 rehabilitants, 239 clinic employees and 37 employees of the DRV OL-HB to a two-round written Delphi survey. The resulting prioritized lists from both methods were combined into a top 10 list.

RESULTS

In the identification phase, 217 rehabilitants, 32 clinic employees and 13 employees of the DRV OL-HB participated in the survey, in the prioritization phase, 75 rehabilitants, 33 clinic employees and 8 employees of the DRV OL-HB in both survey rounds of the Delphi survey, and 11 rehabilitants in the prioritization workshop. A need for practical action primarily in the implementation of holistic and individual rehabilitation, in quality assurance and in the education and participation of rehabilitants was identified, as also a need for research primarily on access to rehabilitation, structures in the rehabilitation setting (e. g., inter-agency cooperation), the design of rehabilitative interventions (more individualized, more suitable for everyday life), and the motivation of rehabilitants.

CONCLUSION

The identified needs for action and research include many topics that have already been identified as problems in previous research projects and by various actors in rehabilitation. In the future, there needs to be increased focus on the development of strategies for dealing with and solving the identified needs, as well as on the implementation of these strategies.

Which clinical research questions are the most important? Development and preliminary validation of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance.

METHODS

Using a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus.

RESULTS

The ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, p<0.001) and journal impact factor group (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.17 to 14.50 for 3rd tertile compared to 1st tertile of ANZMUSC-RQIT scores) for 200 published musculoskeletal clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

We propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.

Comparing an in-person workshop and a postal Delphi survey for involving health service users in health care and health research prioritization

INTRODUCTION

To involve health service users in health care and health research priority setting, different methods exist. Which method is most suitable under which circumstances is unknown. We compared a postal Delphi survey and an in-person workshop to involve health service users in priority settings for rehabilitative care and research in Germany.

METHODS

One hundred and eighty-four former rehabilitants were randomly assigned to a postal Delphi survey (n = 152) or an in-person workshop (n = 32). Two hundred and seventy-six employees in rehabilitation were also invited to the Delphi Survey. The methodological comparison refers only to the sample of rehabilitants. Within each method, the participants agreed on the top 10 priorities for practice improvement and research in rehabilitative care. The priorities were compared descriptively. Participants' satisfaction was measured with the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. The usability of both methods was compared based on the effort, time and material costs required for implementation.

RESULTS

Seventy-five former rehabilitants and 41 employees in rehabilitation completed both Delphi survey rounds. Eleven former rehabilitants participated in the in-person workshop. Priorities for practice improvement showed a high degree of overlap between both methods whereas research priorities differed greatly. Participants of the in-person workshop felt significantly better prepared, more listened to and more likely to feel that different views on the topics were discussed. Participants of the Delphi survey expressed difficulties in understanding all survey questions. The Delphi survey was more elaborate in preparation and implementation but caused lower material costs.

CONCLUSION

The differences in research priorities between the two methods could be due to the different samples, differences in the individual interests of participants or differences in the prioritization process. In-person workshops seem to be more appropriate for complex topics, where clarifications of questions and deeper discussions are needed. Delphi surveys seem to be more suitable for easily understandable topics, larger sample sizes and when fewer financial resources are available.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The different study phases were supported by employees in rehabilitation and former rehabilitants (e.g., developing study documents, and interpreting results).

Research priorities for maternal and perinatal health clinical trials and methods used to identify them: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Research prioritisation helps to target research resources to the most pressing health and healthcare needs of a population. This systematic review aimed to report research priorities in maternal and perinatal health and to assess the methods that were used to identify them.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken. Projects that aimed to identify research priorities that were considered to be amenable to clinical trials research were eligible for inclusion. The search, limited to the last decade and publications in English, included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, relevant Cochrane priority lists, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group homepage, James Lind Alliance homepage, Joanna Brigg's register, PROSPERO register, reference lists of all included articles, grey literature, and the websites of relevant professional bodies, until 13 October 2020. The methods used for prioritisation were appraised using the Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE).

FINDINGS

From the 62 included projects, 757 research priorities of relevance to maternal and perinatal health were identified. The most common priorities related to healthcare systems and services, pregnancy care and complications, and newborn care and complications. The least common priorities related to preconception and postpartum health, maternal mental health, contraception and pregnancy termination, and fetal medicine and surveillance. The most commonly used prioritisation methods were Delphi (20, 32%), Child Health Nutrition Research Initiative (17, 27%) and the James Lind Alliance (10, 16%). The fourteen projects (23%) that reported on at least 80% of the items included in the REPRISE guideline all used an established research prioritisation method.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a large number of diverse research priorities in maternal and perinatal health that are amenable to future clinical trials research. These have been identified by a variety of research prioritisation methods.

The environmental impact of health care for musculoskeletal conditions: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health care has significant environmental impact. We performed a scoping review to map what is known about the environmental impact of health care for musculoskeletal conditions.

METHODS

We included published papers of any design that measured or discussed environmental impact of health care or health support services for any musculoskeletal condition in terms of climate change or global warming (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions it produces). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 2 May 2022 using keywords for environmental health and musculoskeletal conditions, and performed keyword searches using Google and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers screened studies. One author independently charted data, verified by a second author. A narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Of 12,302 publications screened and 73 identified from other searches, 122 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 49 were included (published 1994 to 2022). Of 24 original research studies, 11 measured environmental impact relating to climate change in orthopaedics (n = 10), and medical aids for the knee (n = 1), one measured energy expenditure of laminar versus turbulent airflow ventilation systems in operating rooms during simulated hip replacements and 12 measured waste associated with orthopaedic surgery but did not relate waste to greenhouse gas emissions or environmental effects. Twenty-one editorials described a need to reduce environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery (n = 9), physiotherapy (n = 9), podiatry (n = 2) or occupational therapy (n = 1). Four narrative reviews discussed sustainability relating to hand surgery (n = 2), orthopaedic surgery (n = 1) and orthopaedic implants (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Despite an established link between health care and greenhouse gas emissions we found limited empirical data estimating the impact of musculoskeletal health care on the environment. These data are needed to determine whether actions to lower the carbon footprint of musculoskeletal health care should be a priority and to identify those aspects of care that should be prioritised.

Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied.

CHARTING METHODS

Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research.

RESULTS

We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented.

CONCLUSIONS THAT RELATE TO THE REVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES

Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).

"Listen to me, learn from me": a priority setting partnership for shaping interdisciplinary pain training to strengthen chronic pain care

ABSTRACT

What are the care-seeking priorities of people living with chronic pain and carers and how can these shape interdisciplinary workforce training to improve high-value pain care? Phase 1: Australian people living with chronic pain (n = 206; 90% female) and carers (n = 10; 40% female) described their pain care priorities (eDelphi, round 1). A coding framework was inductively derived from 842 pain care priorities (9 categories, 52 priorities), including validation; communication; multidisciplinary approaches; holistic care; partnerships; practitioner knowledge; self-management; medicines; and diagnosis. Phase 2: In eDelphi round 2, panellists (n = 170; valid responses) rated the importance (1 = less important; 9 = more important) of the represented framework. In parallel, cross-discipline health professionals (n = 267; 75% female) rated the importance of these same priorities. Applying the RAND-UCLA method (panel medians: 1-3: "not important," 4-6: "equivocal," or 7-9: "important"), "important" items were retained where the panel median score was >7 with panel agreement ≥70%, with 44 items (84.6%) retained. Specific workforce training targets included the following: empathic validation; effective, respectful, safe communication; and ensuring genuine partnerships in coplanning personalised care. Panellists and health professionals agreed or strongly agreed (95.7% and 95.2%, respectively) that this framework meaningfully reflected the importance in care seeking for pain. More than 74% of health professionals were fairly or extremely confident in their ability to support care priorities for 6 of 9 categories (66.7%). Phase 3: An interdisciplinary panel (n = 5) mapped an existing foundation-level workforce training program against the framework, identifying gaps and training targets. Recommendations were determined for framework adoption to genuinely shape, from a partnership perspective, Australian interdisciplinary pain training.

"Like Peanut Butter and Jelly": A Qualitative Study of Chiropractic Care and Home Exercise Among Older Adults With Spinal Disability

OBJECTIVE

A mixed-methods, randomized controlled trial comparing short- and long-term chiropractic care and exercise therapy for spinal disability in older adults found no between-group differences in the primary outcome. However, those who received long-term management reported greater improvement in neck pain, self-efficacy, function, and balance. This nested qualitative study explored participants' perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of chiropractic care and exercise for spine-related outcomes, with an emphasis on understanding what makes treatment for spine-related problems worthwhile.

METHODS

Of 171 individual interviews conducted after completing study treatment, 50 participants (25 per treatment group) were randomly selected for this analysis. Qualitative descriptive analysis included dual coding of verbatim transcripts by 2 investigators (MM and SAS), which was further distilled into a consensus-derived codebook of themes and organized using NVIVO software.

RESULTS

Participants described trial interventions as complementary to one another for spine-related disability. Chiropractic care was viewed as improving spinal pain and controlling symptoms, while exercise therapy was noted for its long-term impact on self-efficacy and self-management. These older adults considered changes in pain, global sense of improvement, and improved biomechanical function as making treatment worthwhile.

CONCLUSION

Older adults valued nonpharmacologic treatment options that aided them in controlling spine-related symptoms, while empowering them to maintain clinical benefit gained after a course of chiropractic spinal manipulation and exercise. The complementary nature of provider-delivered and active care modalities may be an important consideration when developing care plans. This study underscores the importance of understanding participants' values and experiences when interpreting study results and applying them to practice.

Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme

OBJECTIVE

To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low.

CONCLUSION

Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.

Research priorities to reduce the impact of musculoskeletal disorders: a priority setting exercise with the child health and nutrition research initiative method

Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure the outcomes are patient-centred and maximise its value and impact. The Musculoskeletal Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across musculoskeletal disorders. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders was used, involving four stages and two surveys, to: (1) gather research uncertainties, (2) consolidate these, (3) score uncertainties against importance and impact, and (4) analyse scoring for prioritisation. 213 people responded to the first survey and 285 people to the second, representing clinicians, researchers, and people with musculoskeletal disorders. Key priorities included developing and testing new treatments, better treatment targeting, early diagnosis, prevention, and better understanding and management of pain, with an emphasis on understanding underpinning mechanisms. We present a call to action to researchers and funders to target these priorities.

Participatory research: a Priority Setting Partnership for chronic musculoskeletal pain in Denmark

OBJECTIVES

Patient and stakeholder engagements in research have increasingly gained attention in healthcare and healthcare-related research. A common and rigorous approach to establish research priorities based on input from people and stakeholders is the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA-PSP). The aim of this study was to establish research priorities for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain by engaging with people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives to people living with chronic MSK pain, healthcare professionals (HCP), and researchers working with chronic MSK pain.

METHODS

This JLA-PSP included a nation-wide survey in Denmark, an interim prioritisation, and an online consensus building workshop. The information gained from this was the basis for developing the final list of specific research priorities within chronic MSK pain.

RESULTS

In the initial survey, 1010 respondents (91% people living with chronic MSK pain/relatives, 9% HCPs/researchers) submitted 3121 potential questions. These were summarised into 19 main themes and 36 sub-themes. In the interim prioritisation exercise, 51% people living with pain/relatives and 49% HCPs/researchers reduced the list to 33 research questions prior to the final priority setting workshop. 23 participants attended the online workshop (12 people/relatives, 10 HCPs, and 1 researcher) who reached consensus for the most important research priorities after two rounds of discussion of each question.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified several specific research questions generated by people living with chronic MSK pain, relatives, HCPs, and researchers. The stakeholders proposed prioritization of the healthcare system's ability to support patients, focus on developing coherent pathways between sectors and education for both patients and HCP. These research questions can form the basis for future studies, funders, and be used to align research with end-users' priorities.

Differentiated kidney tubular cell-derived extracellular vesicles enhance maturation of tubuloids

The prevalence of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is rapidly increasing with the need for regenerative therapies. Adult stem cell derived kidney tubuloids have the potential to functionally mimic the adult kidney tubule, but still lack the expression of important transport proteins needed for waste removal. Here, we investigated the potential of extracellular vesicles (EVs) obtained from matured kidney tubular epithelial cells to modulate in vitro tubuloids functional maturation. We focused on organic anion transporter 1 (OAT1), one of the most important proteins involved in endogenous waste excretion. First, we show that EVs from engineered proximal tubule cells increased the expression of several transcription factors and epithelial transporters, resulting in improved OAT1 transport capacity. Next, a more in-depth proteomic data analysis showed that EVs can trigger various biological pathways, including mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition, which is crucial in the tubular epithelial maturation. Moreover, we demonstrated that the combination of EVs and tubuloid-derived cells can be used as part of a bioartificial kidney to generate a tight polarized epithelial monolayer with formation of dense cilia structures. In conclusion, EVs from kidney tubular epithelial cells can phenotypically improve in vitro tubuloid maturation, thereby enhancing their potential as functional units in regenerative or renal replacement therapies.

What Does It Take for Research to Be Rehabilitation Research?

Six recommendations to facilitate rehabilitation research and supplement existing research practices were identified. Rehabilitation practice requires research addressing different long-term multi-faceted needs and perspectives of end users, including service users, professionals, politicians, and administrators. Research in rehabilitation should therefore integrate different research traditions and methods. Rehabilitation research with a broad focus is sparse, and most of the research takes its starting point in the biomedical research tradition. Through a nominal group process, we developed recommendations to emphasize important issues in rehabilitation research.

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.

Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).

RESULTS

Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.

DISCUSSION

To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

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.

Are we asking the right questions? Working with the LGBTQ+ community to prioritise healthcare research themes

BACKGROUND

Conversations about research priorities with members of the public are rarely designed specifically to include people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers.

METHODS

Generally, to address this gap, and specifically, to inform future research for CLS, we carried out a rapid review of published research priority sets covering LGBTQ+ topics, and an online workshop to prioritise identified themes.

RESULTS

Rapid review: results. The rapid review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five addressed transgender and gender non- conforming populations. All of the research priority sets originated from English-speaking, high and middle-income countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), and date from 2016 onwards. Prioritization approaches were wide-ranging from personal commentary to expert workshops and surveys. Participants involved in setting priorities mostly included research academics, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in this review were then grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop. Workshop: results. For the workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert to a public involvement in research matching website to take part in an online discussion workshop. Those that took part were offered payment for their time in preparing for the workshop and taking part. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to a consensus development process and a final ranked list of seven research themes and participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units added additional context.

CONCLUSIONS

From the workshop the three research themes prioritised were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular challenges / intersectionality of multiple challenges for people identifying as LGBTQ+. Research themes interconnected in many ways and this was demonstrated by the comments from workshop participants. This paper offers insights into why these priorities were important from participants' perspectives and detail about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise. On a practical level these themes will directly inform future research direction for CLS.

Association of Leptin Gene Polymorphisms with Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Chinese Population

Background

Recently, increasing studies have revealed that leptin is involved in the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study is aimed at exploring the association of leptin gene single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with susceptibility to RA in a Chinese population.

Methods

We recruited 600 RA patients and 600 healthy controls from a Chinese population and analyzed their three leptin SNPs (rs10244329, rs2071045, and rs2167270) using the improved Multiplex Ligase Detection Reaction (iMLDR) assays. The associations of these SNPs with clinical manifestations of RA were also analyzed. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was performed for plasma leptin determination.

Results

No significant difference in either allele or genotype frequencies of these three SNPs between RA patients and healthy controls was observed (all P > 0.05). Association between the genotype effects of dominant, recessive models was also not found (all P > 0.05). No significant difference in plasma leptin levels was detected between RA patients and controls (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Leptin gene (rs10244329, rs2071045, and rs2167270) polymorphisms are not associated with RA genetic susceptibility and its clinical features in the Chinese population.

Common hand and wrist conditions: creation of UK research priorities defined by a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

OBJECTIVE

Prioritisation of important treatment uncertainties for 'Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist' via a UK-based James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

SETTING

This process was funded by a national charitable organisation and based in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Anyone with experience of common conditions affecting the adult hand and wrist, including patients, carers and healthcare professionals. All treatment modalities delivered by a hand specialist, including therapists, surgeons or other allied professionals, were considered.

INTERVENTIONS

Established James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership methods were employed.Electronic and paper questionnaires identified potential uncertainties. These were subsequently confirmed using relevant, up-to-date systematic reviews. A final list of top 10 research uncertainties was developed via a face-to-face workshop with representation from patients and clinicians. Impact of research was sought by surveying hand clinicians electronically.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The survey responses and prioritisation-both survey and workshop based.

RESULTS

There were 889 individually submitted questions from the initial survey, refined to 59 uncertainties across 32 themes. Eight additional uncertainties were added from published literature before prioritisation by 261 participants and the workshop allowed the final top 10 list to be finalised. The top 10 has so far contributed to the award of over £3.8 million of competitively awarded funding.

CONCLUSIONS

The Common Conditions in the Hand and Wrist Priority Setting Partnership identified important research questions and has allowed research funders to identify grant applications which are important to both patients and clinicians.

Early development of the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network

The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network was formed to build capacity and infrastructure for high-quality musculoskeletal clinical trials in our region. The purpose of this paper is to describe the steps taken in its formation to help others interested in establishing similar networks. In particular, we describe the steps taken to form the collaboration and our progress in achieving our vision and mission. Our aim is to focus on trials of highest importance and quality to provide definitive answers to the most pressing questions in our field.

Top ten research priorities for problematic knee arthroplasty

AIMS

The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting.

RESULTS

A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176-1182.

Common trace metals in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Environmental risk factors regrading rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have not been explored extensively. Selenium (Se), zinc (Zn) and copper (Cu) nutrients were reported to associate with RA, but the results were inconsistent. Therefore, we conduct present study to meta-analyze the relationship between serum Se, Zn and Cu and RA and review the potential mechanisms.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched till October 1, 2018 for pertinent studies. Standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confident intervals (CIs) were calculated according to random effects model.

RESULTS

Finally 41 literatures were included. Meta-analysis of 16 studies involving 806 RA patients and 959 health controls showed that serum Se (SMD = -1.04, 95% CI = -1.58 to -0.50) was decreased in RA patients, and 23 literatures with 1398 patients and 1299 controls reported serum Zn (SMD = -1.20, 95% CI = -1.74 to -0.67) was decreased. But serum Cu (SMD = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.63 to -1.89) was increased with 26 studies including 1723 patients and 1451 controls. Meta-regression reported that steroid use was positively related to serum level of Se in RA (β = 0.041, 95% CI = 0.002 to 0.079). Differences in serum Se, Zn and Cu between rheumatoid arthritis patients and controls were all related with the geographical distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RA have significant decreased serum Se and Zn and increased serum Cu than health controls, suggesting potential roles of Se, Zn and Cu in the pathogenesis of RA. Patients and rheumatologist should give enough attention to the monitor of these elements during follow up.