Patients', clinicians' and the research communities' priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch

What should we be studying? Research priorities according to women and gender-diverse individuals with sexual interest/arousal disorder and their partners

BACKGROUND

Sexual interest/arousal disorder (SIAD) is one of the most common sexual problems for women. In clinical research, there are often misalignments between the research priorities of patients and researchers, which can negatively impact care, and gender-diverse individuals are often excluded from research. Inclusion of patient perspectives when establishing research priorities may help to reduce these gaps; however, the research priorities of couples coping with SIAD remain unclear.

AIM

Identify the research priorities of women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD and their partners.

METHODS

In an online survey, couples coping with SIAD provided consent and responded to an open-ended question asking them to list the top 3 things they think are important for researchers to focus on related to couples coping with low sexual desire. A team-based content analysis was conducted to identify themes and their frequency of endorsement.

OUTCOMES

An author-developed open-ended question.

RESULTS

Analysis of 1279 responses (n = 667 from women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD, n = 612 from partners) resulted in our identification of 6 main themes: general causes, general treatment and coping, biophysiological, relationship, psychological, and environmental/contextual. Additionally, we identified 4 sub-themes within each of the latter 4 main themes: general, cause, treatment, and impact. For women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD, their partners, and specifically gender-diverse participants, the 3 most endorsed themes were psychological general factors (24.3%, 21.2%, 24.3%; eg, stress and the link between SIAD and anxiety), relationship general factors (15.7%, 13.2%, 18.6%; eg, relationship length and communication on sexual desire), and biophysiological general factors (12.3%, 12.4%, 14.3%; eg, research on medications and hormones).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinical researchers should consider the research priorities of couples coping with SIAD to ensure their work aligns with the needs of the affected population.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This study is the first to identify the research priorities of both women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD and their partners. Most participants identified as heterosexual, North American, and of middle to high socioeconomic status; results may not generalize. Responses were sometimes brief and/or vague; interpretation of these responses was therefore limited and may have required more contextual information.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that women and gender-diverse individuals with SIAD, their partners, and gender-diverse participants have similar research priorities that are consistent with a biopsychosocial approach to research. Heterogeneity of responses across themes supports a multidisciplinary, patient-oriented approach to SIAD research.

Implementation of the four habits model in intermediate care services in Norway: a process evaluation

BACKGROUND

Intermediate care (IC) services bridge the transition for older patients from the hospital to the home. Despite the goal of involving individuals in their recovery process, these services often become standardised, leading to communication breakdowns. While evidence-based practices, such as the Four Habits Model (4HM), for effective communication are crucial for enhancing high-quality healthcare, research suggests their integration into routine practice remains limited. In this study, we aimed to investigate the implementation process of the 4HM through a two-day course that engaged healthcare professionals and managers in IC.

METHODS

We conducted a process evaluation employing qualitative and quantitative methods: (i) individual interviews with three managers and two course participants pre-course, (ii) two focus group interviews with course participants (N = 11) and individual interviews with the same three managers post-course, and (iii) the NoMAD questionnaire (Normalisation MeAsure Development) administered four months later to assess the short- and long-term impact on course participants (N = 14). Reflexive thematic analyses were guided by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), which offers insight into how new interventions become routine practices. The analysis of the NoMAD involved descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We identified four themes in the qualitative data: (i) Decoding Interactions: Making Sense of the 4HM in IC services, (ii) Fostering Change: Legitimising 4HM Through Staff Engagement, (iii) Harmonising Practice: Integrating 4HM into Complex Situations, and (iv) Embedding Value: Normalising the 4HM into Everyday Work. These themes illustrate the normalisation process of the 4HM course within IC, establishing standard practices. Healthcare professionals and managers highlighted the urgent need to integrate communication skills based on the 4HM into daily care. They noted positive changes in their communication habits following the course. The consistent findings from the NoMAD questionnaire underscore the sustainability of implementing the 4HM programme, as participants continue to utilise it in their clinical practice beyond the initial four-month period.

CONCLUSION

The 4HM course programme was deemed feasible for expansion within IC services. Both managers and staff found its focus on addressing communication breakdowns and readiness for change sensible. The study findings may benefit the stakeholders involved in IC service routines, potentially improving services for older patients and relatives.

Involving Experts by Experience in Craniofacial Research

Many areas of health research increasingly involve end users of research (typically patients and their families/caregivers) in study design, management, and dissemination. Beyond recruiting patients as research participants, the shift is towards engaging patients, parents and caregivers as active partners on the research team, who are recognised and valued as 'experts-by-experience' (EbyE). Currently, involving EbyE is not routine in global craniofacial research. This paper highlights the value of EbyE involvement, addresses how to incorporate EbyE at all stages of research and discusses key considerations in facilitating positive experiences for EbyE.

Needs led research: ensuring relevant research in two PhD projects within maternity care

BACKGROUND

There has been a growing concern regarding research waste and the mismatch between conducted research and the research needs of knowledge users. The Needs Led Research (NLR) approach is proposed as an effective method to ensure that research address actual evidence gaps that are relevant to the users of the knowledge. By search and reviewing literature and involving knowledge users, NLR aims to identify, verify, and prioritize research needs. This paper describes and compares the implementation of the NLR approach in two separate PhD projects within maternity care, and addresses the challenges encountered throughout the processes, aiming to offer valuable insights for future NLR initiatives.

METHODS

The NLR processes consisted of four phases: (1) defining the scope (2) identifying and verifying research needs (3) prioritizing research needs and (4) designing the PhD projects. Literature searches were conducted during Phase 2, while knowledge user involvement took place in Phases 2 and 3. The knowledge user involvement, at a co-thinker and advocatory level, included knowledge user groups and surveys. Project groups, who were responsible for all decision-making, conducted Phases 1 and 4. The scopes of the PhD projects were labor induction (NLR-LINO) and fetal monitoring in low-risk deliveries (NLR-LISTEN).

RESULTS

In NLR-LINO, 17 research needs were identified and verified as actual evidence gaps relevant for the knowledge users. Among these, ten were rated as "very important" by a majority of the 322 survey respondents. The aim of the PhD LINO project was defined as "To investigate whether outpatient induction of labor is beneficial in a Norwegian setting." In NLR-LISTEN, seven research needs were identified and verified as actual evidence gaps relevant for the knowledge users. These were prioritized by 466 survey respondents, and the aim of the PhD LISTEN project was defined as "To investigate the methods used for fetal monitoring in low-risk deliveries in Norway and evaluate adherence to evidence-based practice while also exploring potential reasons for any deviations."

CONCLUSIONS

This paper shows that the NLR is a viable approach for prioritizing research. The findings highlight the impact of the initial scope on subsequent phases and emphasize the importance of pragmatic decision-making throughout the process. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that NLR requires dedicated resources, and if integrated into PhD projects, additional time and training should be allocated accordingly.

Priorities and barriers for research related to primary ciliary dyskinesia

Background

Despite advances in primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) research, many questions remain; diagnosis is complex and no disease-specific therapies exist. Using a mixed-methods approach, we aimed to identify priorities for clinical and epidemiological research and explore barriers to research.

Methods

To obtain rich, relevant, diverse data, we performed in-depth semi-structured interviews with PCD specialists selected using purposive sampling. We transcribed, coded and analysed interview data using thematic analysis. Based on interview themes that we identified, we developed an anonymous survey and circulated it widely through the BEAT-PCD network.

Results

We interviewed 28 participants from 15 countries across different disciplines and expertise levels. The main themes identified as priorities for PCD research were improving diagnosis; understanding prevalence and disease course; phenotypic variability; disease monitoring; treatment strategies; clinical trial end-points; and poorly researched areas. In total, 136 participants (49% paediatric pulmonologists) from 36 countries completed the survey. Most commonly reported barriers for research were low awareness about PCD and difficulties securing funding - in more than one-third of cases, participants reported undertaking predominantly unfunded research. Research questions ranked highest included priorities related to further improving diagnosis, treating PCD, managing upper and lower airway problems, and studying clinical variability and disease prognosis.

Conclusion

We need to overcome barriers of limited funding and low awareness and promote collaborations between centres, disciplines, experts and patients to address identified PCD priorities effectively. Our results contribute to the ongoing efforts of guiding the use of existing limited research resources and setting up a roadmap for future research activities.

A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health

Objectives

This study aimed to develop and apply a structured approach for prioritising topics for systematic reviews in public health, framed according to the readily applicable PICO format, which encourages the involvement of stakeholders' preferences in a transparent matter.

Methods

We developed a multi-stage process, consisting of a scoping and two Delphi stages with web-based surveys and invited public health stakeholders in Switzerland to participate: First, respondents specified topics for different public health domains, which were reformulated in a PICO format by content analysis. Second, respondents rated the topics using five stakeholder-refined assessment criteria. Overall rankings were calculated to assess differences between stakeholder groups and rating criteria.

Results

In total, 215 respondents suggested 728 topics altogether. The response rate in the two Delphi stages was 91.6% and 77.6%, respectively. Most top-rated review topics focused on the effectiveness of interventions providing education to different target groups, followed by interventions to increase access to specific healthcare services.

Conclusion

Our approach encourages involvement of stakeholders in identifying priorities for systematic reviews and highlights disparities between stakeholders and between individual criteria.

Setting the international research agenda for sarcomas with patients and carers: results of phase II of the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN) priority setting partnership

BACKGROUND

Typically, researchers and clinicians determine the agenda in sarcoma research. However, patient involvement can have a meaningful impact on research. Therefore, the Patient-Powered Research Network (PPRN) of the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN) set up a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). The primary objective of this partnership is to identify priorities for research and patient advocacy topics.

METHODS

In the first phase of this PSP, including 264 sarcoma patients and carers from all over the world, 23 research topics regarding sarcomas and 15 patient advocacy topics were identified using an online survey. In the second phase, participants were asked to fill in a top five and a top three of research and patient advocacy topics, respectively. Additionally, sociodemographic characteristics and sarcoma characteristics were collected. Social media channels, local national patient advocacy groups and the SPAGN website were used to distribute the survey.

RESULTS

In total, 671 patients (75%) and carers (25%) participated in this survey. The five highest ranked research topics were related to causes of sarcoma (43%), prognosis and risk of recurrence (40%), specific subtypes of sarcoma (33%), the role of immunotherapy, targeted therapy and combined therapy (30%), and hereditary aspects (30%). The three highest ranked patient advocacy topics were improving the diagnostic process of sarcoma (39%), access to tumor DNA analysis (37%) and establishing an international sarcoma registry (37%).

CONCLUSIONS

This sarcoma PSP has identified priorities for research and patient advocacy, offering guidance for researchers, assisting funding agencies with assessing project relevance and empowering patient advocates to represent the needs of patients and carers.

An auto-ethnographic study of co-produced health research in a patient organisation: unpacking the good, the bad, and the unspoken

BACKGROUND

In rare diseases, limited access to services and rare disease experts may force families to act as medical advocates for their child; they can volunteer to support clinician-initiated research or initiate and lead research themselves. Ketotic Hypoglycemia International (KHI) is a new, global organization for families affected by idiopathic ketotic hypoglycemia (IKH) and is run solely by volunteers. Doing research together, families and international experts in a collaborative process such as at KHI, also referred to as patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) or extreme citizen science, is often praised for its positive effects on the research and the stakeholders involved.

METHODS

We used auto-ethnographic narratives from parents and medical professionals in KHI to report on their experiences with co-produced health research. All co-authors wrote down their experiences in relation to three topics: time invested, work invested and power dynamics.

RESULTS

Whilst the parents and health care professionals felt a new hope for (their) children with IKH, they also felt pressure to contribute time or to be flexible in how and when they dedicated time towards the organization. The power dynamics were characterised by a change in the relationship between the parents and medical experts; the parent being taught by the expert shifted to the expert learning from the lived experience of the parent. Both parents and medical experts struggled with maintaining boundaries and safeguarding their mental health.

CONCLUSION

Our findings call for the need to secure and prioritize funding for patient organizations, to enable them to create the sustainable architecture required for meaningful PPIE within these organizations. The morals and often deeply personal reasons for engaging with voluntary work in health research, can lead to overstepping of boundaries. As a result of our research, we call for the development of ethics of care guidelines within collaborative health research.

Identifying neonatal transport research priorities: a modified Delphi consensus

OBJECTIVES

With increasing advances in neonatal transport, a focused research strategy is required to increase the evidence base towards providing optimal care. We aimed to identify the most important neonatal transport research questions as prioritised by parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

DESIGN

Key stakeholders participated in a modified three-stage Delphi consensus process. Research questions were identified and submitted through two survey stages before the final priority setting workshop.

PARTICIPANTS

Parents of babies who received neonatal care, neonatal HCPs and stakeholders.

OUTCOME

Identify the top 10 research priorities for neonatal transport.

RESULTS

Overall, 269 survey responses from HCPs/stakeholders (n=161) and parents (n=108) were analysed from two survey rounds. Consensus was reached on 22 of 43 research priorities for the final priority setting workshop. The agreed top research priorities covered the domains of: (1) Pain assessment and management, (2) Long-term neurological outcomes, (3) Impact of transfer on birth-related brain injury, (4) Investigating risk of transport, (5) Safety restraints for infants, (6) Optimal temperature management, (7) Respiratory management and outcomes, (8) Benchmarking of important of transport measures, (9) Understanding transport environmental exposures, (10) Mental health and burden of transfer on families.

CONCLUSION

We have identified the top research questions for neonatal transport through an extensive process actively engaging parents, HCPs and key stakeholders. Targeted funding and research resources, directed towards addressing these prioritised research areas, will inform evidence-based practices and international frameworks specific to neonatal transport, helping minimise research waste and ultimately improve outcomes for these high-risk infants and their families.

Overarching Priorities for Health and Care Research in the United Kingdom: A Coproduced Synthesis of James Lind Alliance 'Top 10s'

INTRODUCTION

James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) produce 'Top 10' lists of health and care research priorities through a structured, shared decision-making process with patients or service users, carers and health or care professionals who identify questions that are most important to them. To date, over 150 PSPs in different areas of health and care have published research priorities. Some PSPs share similar priorities, which could be combined, promoted and addressed through collaborative research to increase value and reduce research waste.

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify overarching themes common to JLA PSP priorities across different areas of health and care.

METHODS

Our analysis included 'Top 10' research priorities produced by UK-based JLA PSPs between 2016 and 2020. The priorities were coded deductively by the Health Research Classification System (HRCS) health category and research activity. We then carried out online workshops with patients, service users and carers to generate new codes not already captured by this framework. Within each code, multistakeholder inductive thematic analysis was used to identify overarching themes, defined as encompassing priorities from three or more PSPs covering two or more health categories. We used codesign methods to produce an interactive tool for end users to navigate the overarching themes.

RESULTS

Five hundred and fifteen research priorities from 51 PSPs were included in our analysis. The priorities together encompassed 20 of 21 HRCS health categories, the most common being 'generic health relevance' (22%), 'mental health' (18%) and 'musculoskeletal' (14%). We identified 89 overarching themes and subthemes, which we organised into a hierarchy with seven top-level themes: quality of life, caregivers and families, causes and prevention, screening and diagnosis, treatment and management, services and systems and social influences and impacts.

CONCLUSION

There are many overarching themes common to research priorities across multiple areas of health and care. To facilitate new research and research funding, we have developed an interactive tool to help researchers, funders and patients or service users to explore these priority topics. This is freely available to download online.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients or service users and carers were involved throughout the study, including deciding the aims, designing the study, analysing priorities to identify themes, interpreting and reporting the findings.

Science Shops as key intermediary structures to respond to the current health research agenda bias: Evidence from the InSPIRES project

INTRODUCTION

To increase the likelihood of research responding to societal needs, intermediary structures such as Science Shops are being created. Science Shops respond to research needs identified and prioritized through participatory processes involving civil society. However, these are not mainstream structures, and most research needs addressed by the scientific community are not defined by a diversity of stakeholders (including citizens) but are mostly prioritized by researchers and funders. Literature shows this often leads to bias between the research topics investigated and the research needs of other relevant stakeholders. This study analyses how 14 Science Shops contribute to decreasing bias in health research agenda setting.

METHODOLOGY

We compare the research priorities identified through participatory processes by the Science Shops, which participated in the European Union-funded project InSPIRES (2017-2021), to the available research addressed in the literature (identified in Web of Science), which we use as a proxy for current research priorities.

RESULTS

Science Shop projects contributed to decreasing the existing bias in health research agenda setting: (1) between drug and nondrug treatments and (2) between clinical trials of treatments for illnesses affecting high-income versus middle- and low-income countries, which leads to a lack of local strategies for high disease burdens in nonhigh-income regions.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first evidence of Science Shops' effectiveness in addressing current biases in health research agenda setting. We conclude they could play a key role in shaping local, national and international research policies.

Implementing Lived Experience Workshops in Regional Areas of British Columbia to Enhance Clinicians' Confidence in Spinal Cord Injury Care: An Evaluation

In British Columbia (BC), there are challenges accessing specialized spinal cord injury care and resources. This paper evaluated the impact of spinal cord injury health educational workshops delivered in regional communities that were informed by persons with lived experience. A community survey was conducted with 44 persons with lived experience in a BC region to identify priority SCI health-related topics. Twenty-five topics were ranked from 1-14, with bowel and bladder management ranked 1 and 4, sexual health ranked 5, and pressure injuries ranked 7. Clinical perspectives on the priorities were collected from 102 clinicians in the BC region, who independently ranked 14 of these SCI topics and considered the former 4 topics to be lower clinical priority (ranked 11-14). These priorities informed a series of SCI clinical education workshops held at healthcare facilities in three regional cities. The goals were to improve clinicians' knowledge and confidence levels when managing spinal cord injury health and to facilitate person-centred care. Positive feedback demonstrated that educational workshops supported by lived experience perspectives effectively enhanced the clinicians' understanding of spinal cord injury and their priorities. Future plans include engaging more administrators as part of this initiative and conducting workshops in other regions of BC.

Dental disease in companion rabbits under UK primary veterinary care: Frequency and risk factors

BACKGROUND

Some prior evidence has suggested that lop-eared rabbits and those with brachycephalic skull conformations have a higher dental disease risk. This retrospective cohort study reports the frequency and conformational risk factors for primary-care veterinary diagnosis with dental disease in companion rabbits in the UK.

METHODS

Anonymised VetCompass clinical records were manually reviewed to confirm dental disease cases. Risk factor analysis used multivariable binary logistic regression modelling.

RESULTS

From 161,979 rabbits under primary veterinary care in 2019, the 1-year period prevalence of overall dental disease was 15.36% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.78-15.96). The prevalence of dental disease affecting incisors was 3.14% (95% CI: 2.87-3.44), and for cheek teeth it was 13.72% (95% CI: 13.17-14.29). Neither lop-eared conformation nor brachycephalic skull conformation was significantly associated with increased odds of dental disease. Dental disease odds increased as age increased and decreased as bodyweight increased.

LIMITATIONS

This study retrospectively accessed clinical records, so breed names may sometimes be imprecise.

CONCLUSION

The high overall prevalence of dental disease represents a major welfare concern for all companion rabbits, regardless of conformation. This information can be used to encourage regular routine dental assessment of rabbits of all conformations to promote earlier diagnosis, paying particular attention to older rabbits and those with low bodyweight.

Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) Patient and Nurse Preferences around Novel and Standard Automated PD Device Features

Key Points

Adoption and extended time on peritoneal dialysis require patient input across a spectrum of needs, including automated PD (APD) device usability features that are less intimidating to patients and enable lifestyle advantages. Analysis of APD features critical to patients align with patient priorities identified in Standardized Outcomes in NephroloGy-PD: shorter setup time, mobility within the home, near silent operation, and modified APD size/orientation.

Background

Despite offering greater lifestyle benefits to patients with ESKD, adoption of peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains low globally, particularly among minorities and the socioeconomically disadvantaged. While automated PD (APD) affords a high potential for reducing the burden of KRT, understanding patient preferences is critical to guiding development of new and improved APD devices to better accommodate use in their daily lives.

Methods

A quantitative cross-sectional survey study was performed using adaptive conjoint analysis to quantify APD feature preferences among patients on PD, PD Registered Nurses (RNs), and non-PD patients to ascertain the relative importance of eight specific cycler attributes, including portability, noise, setup time, device size, setup directions, battery power, consumables, and PD RN control (PD RNs only), each with 2–3 descriptive feature levels.

Results

Forty-two patients on PD, 24 non-PD patients, and 52 PD RNs were surveyed. Preference shares spanned nearly the entire range from 0% to 100%, indicating strong preference discrimination. For all groups, “Portability in the Home,” “Noise Level,” and “Setup Time” were the most important features. Patients on PD gave highest priority to these features compared with other study participants, plausibly as features enabling improved lifestyle. A simulated “coat rack” style cycler with extended battery power that was easy to move in the home, silent, required only 10-minute setup, and had a fully animated instruction screen was preferred by all groups >90% compared with features present in existing cyclers.

Conclusions

Addressing APD cycler technical and therapy-related issues to improve usability, comfort, and convenience within the home may affect PD uptake and retention. Attention and priority must be given to patient-centric APD cycler design directed at including features that improve quality of life for the device end user.

A strategic neurological research agenda for Europe: Towards clinically relevant and patient-centred neurological research priorities

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Neurological disorders constitute a significant portion of the global disease burden, affecting >30% of the world's population. This prevalence poses a substantial threat to global health in the foreseeable future. A lack of awareness regarding this high burden of neurological diseases has led to their underrecognition, underappreciation, and insufficient funding. Establishing a strategic and comprehensive research agenda for brain-related studies is a crucial step towards aligning research objectives among all pertinent stakeholders and fostering greater societal awareness.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was undertaken by a working group from the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) to identify any existing research agendas relevant to neurology. Additionally, a specialized survey was conducted among all EAN scientific panels, including neurologists and patients, inquiring about their perspectives on the current research priorities and gaps in neurology.

RESULTS

The review revealed the absence of a unified, overarching brain research agenda. Existing research agendas predominantly focus on specialized topics within neurology, resulting in an imbalance in the number of agendas across subspecialties. The survey indicated a prioritization of neurological disorders and research gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

Building upon the findings from the review and survey, key components for a strategic and comprehensive neurological research agenda in Europe were delineated. This research agenda serves as a valuable prioritization tool for neuroscientific researchers, as well as for clinicians, donors, and funding agencies in the field of neurology. It offers essential guidance for creating a roadmap for research and clinical advancement, ultimately leading to heightened awareness and reduced burden of neurological disorders.

Attitudes, beliefs, behaviours and perspectives on barriers and enablers of Australian general practitioners towards non-drug interventions: a national survey

BACKGROUND

Many guidelines recommend non-drug interventions (NDIs) for managing common conditions in primary care. However, compared with drug interventions, NDIs are less widely known, promoted and used. We aim to (1) examine general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge, attitudes and practices for NDIs, including their use of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) Handbook of Non-Drug Interventions (HANDI), and (2) identify factors influencing their use of NDIs and HANDI.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey of practicing GP members in Australia during October-November 2022. The survey contained five sections: characteristics of GP; knowledge and use of NDIs; attitudes towards NDIs; barriers and enablers to using HANDI; and suggestions of NDIs and ideas to improve the uptake of NDIs in primary care.

RESULTS

Of the 366 GPs who completed the survey, 242 (66%) were female, and 248 (74%) were ≥45 years old. One in three GPs reported that they regularly ('always') recommend NDIs to their patients when appropriate (34%), whereas one-third of GPs were unaware of HANDI (39%). GPs identified several factors that improve the uptake of HANDI, including 'access and integration of HANDI in clinical practice', 'content and support to use in practice' and 'awareness and training'.

CONCLUSIONS

While many GPs are aware of the effectiveness of NDIs and often endorse their use, obstacles still prevent widespread adoption in primary care. The results of this survey can serve as a foundation for developing implementation strategies to improve the uptake of effective evidence-based NDIs in primary care.

Identifying Research Priorities in Limb Reconstruction Surgery in the United Kingdom

Introduction

Limb reconstruction surgery (LRS) has a wide range of clinical applications within orthopaedic and trauma surgery. We sought a consensus view from limb reconstruction healthcare practitioners across the United Kingdom to help guide research priorities within LRS. Our aim is to guide future clinical research in LRS, and assist healthcare practitioners, clinical academics, and funding bodies in identifying key research priorities to improve patient care.

Materials and methods

A modified Delphi approach was used; it involved an initial scoping survey and a 2-round Delphi process to identify the consensus research priorities in both adult and paediatric LRS. Participants were asked to rank approved submitted questions according to perceived importance on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented lowest importance and 5 indicated highest importance. Mean scores were calculated to identify a consensus of the top ten research priorities for adult and paediatric LRS.

Results

One hundred and fifteen participants primarily from across the United Kingdom working in LRS contributed to the modified Delphi process. Participants ranked and then re-ranked the presented research topics in terms of perceived importance. This led to the identification of a top ten research priorities in both adult and paediatric LRS, respectively, based on the collective responses of LRS practitioners. The highest-ranked questions in both adult and paediatric practice related to how to best assess and record patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in LRS patients. Other priorities included the effectiveness of specialist physiotherapy, the use of patient-focused psychological support, and the use of various operative management strategies for infection and limb length discrepancies.

Conclusion

We present a consensus-driven research priority study that outlines the key research topics and themes determined by healthcare professionals within LRS in the United Kingdom.

Clinical significance

These questions will assist funding bodies in prioritising where research funding may be best utilised and help drive future improvement in patient care.

How to cite this article

British Limb Reconstruction Society Research Collaborative. Identifying Research Priorities in Limb Reconstruction Surgery in the United Kingdom. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2024;19(1):1-8.

Priorities for implementation research on diagnosing cancer in primary care: a consensus process

BACKGROUND

The early detection and diagnosis of cancer to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity is a challenging task in primary health care. There is a growing evidence base on how to enable earlier cancer diagnosis, but well-recognised gaps and delays exist around the translation of new research findings into routine clinical practice. Implementation research aims to accelerate the uptake of evidence by health care systems and professionals. We aimed to identify priorities for implementation research in early cancer diagnosis in primary care.

METHODS

We used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus process to identify and rank research priorities. We asked primary care physicians, patients and researchers to complete an online survey suggesting priorities for implementation research in cancer detection and diagnosis. We summarised and presented these suggestions to an 11-member consensus panel comprising nine primary care physicians and two patients. Panellists independently rated the importance of suggestions on a 1-9 scale (9 = very high priority; 1 = very low priority) before and after a structured group discussion. We ranked suggestions using median ratings.

RESULTS

We received a total of 115 suggested priorities for implementation research from 32 survey respondents (including 16 primary care professionals, 11 researchers, and 4 patient and public representatives; 88% of respondents were UK-based). After removing duplicates and ineligible suggestions, we presented 37 suggestions grouped within 17 categories to the consensus panel. Following two rounds of rating, 27 suggestions were highly supported (median rating 7-9). The most highly rated suggestions concerned diagnostic support (e.g., access to imaging) interventions (e.g., professional or patient education), organisation of the delivery of care (e.g., communication within and between teams) and understanding variations in care and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified a set of priorities for implementation research on the early diagnosis of cancer, ranked in importance by primary care physicians and patients. We suggest that researchers and research funders consider these in directing further efforts and resources to improve population outcomes.

Using integrated knowledge translation to address a rurally based time-critical knowledge gap during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multimethods study in Victoria, Australia

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the intention of health professionals to use evidence generated through an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) activity undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic to answer a time-critical research question about the delivery of community-based group programmes to rural clients via virtual technology, and describe the participating health professionals and researchers' perceptions of the iKT partnership.

DESIGN

Multimethod study incorporating qualitative and quantitative approaches.

SETTING

Two regional health services in Victoria (Australia).

PARTICIPANTS

26 allied health professionals (knowledge-partners) from eight disciplines across two regional health services and eight researchers from five Victorian universities.

INTERVENTION

An iKT approach was used to facilitate problem identification, evidence synthesis and adaption of evidence to the local context.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Participants were invited to complete a survey (knowledge-partners) and undertake a semistructured interview (knowledge-partners and researchers) on their experiences. A process log of collaborative activities tracked the type of engagement activities, who attended and the outcomes. The survey and process log results were analysed descriptively, the interviews using thematic analysis and a comparison of results approach applied to evaluate similarities and differences in the perception of the partnership from separate data collection and analysis processes.

RESULTS

The survey indicated strong positive attitudes towards using research evidence in practice as well as strong intentions to use it in the future by knowledge-partners. Knowledge-partners indicated that their expertise was used in the research process, although there was greater collaboration in some steps of iKT. The context of COVID-19 facilitated collaboration between knowledge-partners and researchers through a sense of urgency and shared purpose. Rapid team development was a key mechanism that enabled iKT. Team participation was necessarily pragmatic and flexible in nature to facilitate knowledge-partner involvement. Participants suggested the iKT process was likely to result in greater end-user buy in and a powerful example of how to upskill health professionals without a significant impact on their day-to-day workload. This project was considered by knowledge-partners to be more likely to have an impact compared with other projects without a research partner.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights how researchers and knowledge-partners can work effectively and rapidly to address a time-sensitive problem of mutual interest. Establishing and nurturing rural-based researcher and knowledge-partner networks is key to enabling agile and timely responses to the changing evidence needs of the health system.

[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.

Partnering with patients and caregivers to enrich research and care in kidney disease: values and strategies

Patient and caregiver involvement broadens the scope of new knowledge generated from research and can enhance the relevance, quality and impact of research on clinical practice and health outcomes. Incorporating the perspectives of people with lived experience of chronic kidney disease (CKD) affords new insights into the design of interventions, study methodology, data analysis and implementation and has value for patients, healthcare professionals and researchers alike. However, patient involvement in CKD research has been limited and data on which to inform best practice is scarce. A number of frameworks have been developed for involving patients and caregivers in research in CKD and in health research more broadly. These frameworks provide an overall conceptual structure to guide the planning and implementation of research partnerships and describe values that are essential and strategies considered best practice when working with diverse stakeholder groups. This article aims to provide a summary of the strategies most widely used to support multistakeholder partnerships, the different ways patients and caregivers can be involved in research and the methods used to amalgamate diverse and at times conflicting points of view.

Patients' and carers' priorities for cancer research in Aotearoa/New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Discrepancies have been reported between what is being researched, and what patients/families deem important to be investigated. Our aim was to understand research priorities for those who live with cancer in Aotearoa/New Zealand, with emphasis on Māori.

METHODS

Adult outpatients with cancer and their whānau/family completed a survey (demographics, selecting keywords, free-text comments) at Christchurch hospital. Quantitative and qualitative data were evaluated using standard statistical and thematic analyses, respectively.

RESULTS

We recruited 205 participants, including both tūroro/patients (n = 129) and their whānau/family/carer (n = 76). Partnership with Māori health workers enabled greater recruitment of Māori participants (19%), compared to the proportion of Māori in Canterbury (9%). Cancer research was seen as a priority by 96% of participants. Priorities were similar between Māori and non-Māori participants, with the keywords 'Cancer screening', 'Quality of Life' and 'Development of new drugs' chosen most often. Free-text analysis identified three themes; 'Genetics and Prevention', 'Early Detection and Treatment', and 'Service Delivery', with some differences by ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer research is a high priority for those living with cancer. In addition, participants want researchers to listen to their immediate and practical needs. These findings may inform future cancer research in Aotearoa.

MāORI TERMS AND TRANSLATION

Aotearoa (New Zealand) he aha ō whakaaro (what are your thoughts) hui (gathering) mate pukupuku (cancer) mokopuna (descendent) Ōtautahi (Christchurch) rongoā (traditional healing) tāne (male) te reo (Māori language) Te Whatu Ora (weaving of wellness, Health New Zealand) tikanga (methods, customary practices) tūroro (patients) (alternative terms used: whānau affected by cancer or tangata whaiora (person seeking health)) wahine (female) Waitaha (Canterbury) whakapapa (genealogy) whānau ((extended) family, based on whakapapa, here also carer).

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 a Patient-Driven Agenda for Cancer Research Priorities in Geriatric Oncology: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore older adults' perceptions of priorities for research in cancer and hematological malignancies and proposes an agenda of patient-driven priorities for cancer care research in the field of geriatric oncology.

DATA SOURCES

Sixteen older adults (≥65 years) living with or after a diagnosis of cancer participated in a descriptive qualitative study. Participants were purposively recruited via a regional cancer center and cancer advocacy organizations. Semistructured telephone interviews explored participants' experiences of cancer and perceptions of priorities for future cancer-related research.

CONCLUSION

Participants reported positive experiences of cancer care. However, positive and negative experiences of information, symptoms, and support both within and beyond the hospital setting were highlighted. Forty-two research priorities in six thematic areas were identified: 1) recognition of the signs and symptoms of cancer; 2) research about cancer treatment; 3) assessment and management of comorbidities; 4) unmet needs of older adults living with and after cancer; 5) impact of COVID-19; and 6) impact on caregivers and family members of people living with and after cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The results of this study provide a basis for future priority-setting activities that are culturally and contextually sensitive to health care systems, resources, and needs of older adults living with and after cancer. Based on the findings of this study, we make recommendations for the development of interventions that can build awareness, capacity, and competence in geriatric oncology among cancer care professionals and consideration of the diverse needs of older adults in the development of interventions to address unmet information and supportive care needs.

Identifying the asthma research priorities of people with asthma, their carers and other stakeholders

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

People living with asthma, their carers, clinicians and policymakers are the end-users of research and need research that address their individual healthcare needs. We aimed to understand the research priorities of end-users of asthma research.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional mixed-methods study was conducted. The study included an online survey that engaged patients, carers, healthcare professionals and policymakers to provide statements to free-text questions about what they would like to see answered by research to improve living with asthma on a day-to-day basis. Responses where thematically analysed followed by three online priority setting consensus workshops.

RESULTS

There were 593 respondents who provided 1446 text comments. Participants prioritized 10 asthma research themes which were: (1) asthma in children, (2) COVID 19 and asthma, (3) asthma care and self-management, (4) diagnosis and medication, (5) managing asthma attacks, (6) causes, prevention and features of asthma, (7) mental health, (8) asthma and ageing, (9) severe asthma, (10) asthma and other health conditions. Each theme comprises specific research questions.

CONCLUSION

This project successfully established 10 priority research themes for asthma, reflecting the collective voice of the end-users of this research. These novel data can be used to address the documented mismatch in research prioritization between the research community and the end-users of research.

How does research activity align with research need in chronic subdural haematoma: a gap analysis of systematic reviews with end-user selected knowledge gaps

BACKGROUND

Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is increasingly common. Although treatment is triaged and provided by neurosurgery, the role of non-operative care, alongside observed peri-operative morbidity and patient complexity, suggests that optimum care requires a multi-disciplinary approach. A UK consortium (Improving Care in Elderly Neurosurgery Initiative [ICENI]) has been formed to develop the first comprehensive clinical practice guideline. This starts by identifying critical questions to ask of the literature. The aim of this review was to consider whether existing systematic reviews had suitably addressed these questions.

METHODS

Critical research questions to inform CSDH care were identified using multi-stakeholder workshops, including patient and public representation. A CSDH umbrella review of full-text systematic reviews and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement (CRD42022328562). Four databases were searched from inception up to 30 April 2022. Review quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 criteria, mapped to critical research questions.

RESULTS

Forty-four critical research questions were identified, across 12 themes. Seventy-three articles were included in the umbrella review, comprising 206,369 patients. Most reviews (86.3%, n=63) assessed complications and recurrence after surgery. ICENI themes were not addressed in current literature, and duplication of reviews was common (54.8%, n=40). AMSTAR-2 confidence rating was high in 7 (9.6%) reviews, moderate in 8 (11.0%), low in 10 (13.7%) and critically low in 48 (65.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The ICENI themes have yet to be examined in existing secondary CSDH literature, and a series of new reviews is now required to address these questions for a clinical practice guideline. There is a need to broaden and redirect research efforts to meet the organisation of services and clinical needs of individual patients.

Priority topics for child and family health research in community-based paediatric health care according to caregivers and health care professionals

Background

Patient-oriented research (POR) aligns research with stakeholders' priorities to improve health services and outcomes. Community-based health care settings offer an opportunity to engage stakeholders to determine the most important research topics to them. Our objectives were to identify unanswered questions that stakeholders had regarding any aspect of child and family health and prioritize their 'top 10' questions.

Methods

We followed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting methodology in partnership with stakeholders from the Northeast Community Health Centre (NECHC; Edmonton, Canada). We partnered with stakeholders (five caregivers, five health care professionals [HCPs]) to create a steering committee. Stakeholders were surveyed in two rounds (n = 125 per survey) to gather and rank-order unanswered questions regarding child and family health. A final priority setting workshop was held to finalize the 'top 10' list.

Results

Our initial survey generated 1,265 submissions from 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Out of scope submissions were removed and similar questions were combined to create a master list of questions (n = 389). Only unanswered questions advanced (n = 108) and were rank-ordered through a second survey by 100 caregivers and 25 HCPs. Stakeholders (n = 12) gathered for the final workshop to discuss and finalize the 'top 10' list. Priority questions included a range of topics, including mental health, screen time, COVID-19, and behaviour.

Conclusion

Our stakeholders prioritized diverse questions within our 'top 10' list; questions regarding mental health were the most common. Future patient-oriented research at this site will be guided by priorities that were most important to caregivers and HCPs.

Meaningful coproduction with clinicians: establishing a practice-based research network with physiotherapists in regional Australia

BACKGROUND

The disconnect between research and clinical practice leads to research evidence that is often not useful for clinical practice. Practice-based research networks are collaborations between researchers and clinicians aimed at coproducing more useful research. Such networks are rare in the physiotherapy field. We aimed to describe (i) clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network, (ii) the process of network establishment and (iii) research priorities for a practice-based network of physiotherapists in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia that supports research coproduction.

METHODS

We describe the methods and outcomes of the three steps we used to establish the network. Step 1 involved consultation with local opinion leaders and a formative evaluation to understand clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network. Step 2 involved establishment activities to generate a founding membership group and codesign a governance model. Step 3 involved mapping clinical problems through a workshop guided by systems thinking theory with local stakeholders and prioritizing research areas.

RESULTS

Through formative evaluation focus groups, we generated five key motivating themes and three key enablers for physiotherapists' involvement in the network. Establishment activities led to a founding membership group (n = 29, 67% from private practice clinics), a network vision and mission statement, and a joint governance group (9/13 [70%] are private practice clinicians). Our problem-mapping and prioritization process led to three clinically relevant priority research areas with the potential for significant change in practice and patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are motivated to break down traditional siloed research generation and collaborate with researchers to solve a wide array of issues with the delivery of care. Practice-based research networks have promise for both researchers and clinicians in the common goal of improving patient outcomes.

Breast, Prostate, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Incidence and Risk Factors in Women Who Have Sex with Women and Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis Using UK Biobank

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence about cancer incidence for lesbian, gay and bisexual women and men, although the prevalence of cancer risk factors may be higher.

AIM

To describe cancer incidence for four common cancers (breast, lung, colorectal and prostate).

METHODS

This project used UK Biobank participant data. We explored risk factor prevalence (age, deprivation, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol intake, obesity, parity, and sexual history), and calculated cancer risk, for six groups defined based on sexual history; women who have sex exclusively with men (WSEM), or women (WSEW), women who have sex with men and women (WSWM); men who have sex exclusively with women (MSEW), or men (MSEM), and men who have sex with women and men (MSWM).

RESULTS

WSEW, WSWM, MSEM, and MSMW were younger, more likely to smoke, and to live in more deprived neighbourhoods. We found no evidence of an association between sexual history and breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer in age-adjusted models. Lung cancer incidence was higher for WSWM compared with WSEM, HR (95%CI) 1.78 (1.28-2.48), p = 0.0005, and MSWM compared with MSEW, 1.43 (1.03-1.99), p = 0.031; after adjustment for smoking, this difference was no longer significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minority groups have a higher risk for lung cancer, due to greater exposure to smoking.

The role of patient advocates and sarcoma community initiatives in musculoskeletal oncology. Moving towards Evidence-Based Advocacy to empower Evidence-Based Medicine

Musculoskeletal sarcomas are rare cancers that as the whole family of sarcomas pose several challenges at different levels, ranging from medical knowledge to clinical research and policymaking. Addressing these challenges, necessarily calls for the inclusion of patient perspective inside the decision-making processes of every area that contributes to treatment improvement, from the provision of high-quality services by healthcare organisations to research issues. Without patient-provided inputs to inform decisions, the current paradigm of patient-centred care makes no sense and sounds at the least irrational if not unethical. Putting PROMs on "centre stage" in cancer research and care, could allow to build a truly Evidence Based Advocacy (EBA) and therefore to empower Evidence Based Medicine (EBM).

Consumer and Healthcare Professional Led Priority Setting for Quality Use of Medicines in People with Dementia: Gathering Unanswered Research Questions

BACKGROUND

Historically, research questions have been posed by the pharmaceutical industry or researchers, with little involvement of consumers and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To determine what questions about medicine use are important to people living with dementia and their care team and whether they have been previously answered by research.

METHODS

The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process was followed. A national Australian qualitative survey on medicine use in people living with dementia was conducted with consumers (people living with dementia and their carers including family, and friends) and healthcare professionals. Survey findings were supplemented with key informant interviews and relevant published documents (identified by the research team). Conventional content analysis was used to generate summary questions. Finally, evidence checking was conducted to determine if the summary questions were 'unanswered'.

RESULTS

A total of 545 questions were submitted by 228 survey participants (151 consumers and 77 healthcare professionals). Eight interviews were conducted with key informants and four relevant published documents were identified and reviewed. Overall, analysis resulted in 68 research questions, grouped into 13 themes. Themes with the greatest number of questions were related to co-morbidities, adverse drug reactions, treatment of dementia, and polypharmacy. Evidence checking resulted in 67 unanswered questions.

CONCLUSION

A wide variety of unanswered research questions were identified. Addressing unanswered research questions identified by consumers and healthcare professionals through this process will ensure that areas of priority are targeted in future research to achieve optimal health outcomes through quality use of medicines.

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 of Individuals and Caregivers With Lewy Body Dementia: A Web-based Survey

INTRODUCTION

Lewy body dementia (LBD) is common, yet under-recognized and under-researched. To plan studies with the highest impact, engagement of the community personally affected by these conditions is essential.

METHODS

A web-based survey of people living with LBD and current and former caregivers of people with LBD queried research priorities through forced ranking and exploration of burden of LBD symptoms. Specific caregiving needs in LBD and perceptions of research participation were also investigated.

RESULTS

Between April 7, 2021 and July 1, 2021, 984 responses were recorded. Top research priorities included disease-modifying therapies and improved disease detection and staging. People with LBD were interested in pathophysiology and more bothered by motor symptoms; caregivers were interested in risk factors and symptomatic therapies and more bothered by neuropsychiatric symptoms. Few available LBD treatments and resources were rated as helpful, and many valuable services were never received. Previous participation in LBD research was infrequent, but interest was high.

DISCUSSION

People with LBD and caregivers highlighted the need for research across all aspects of LBD, from pathophysiology and disease modification to prognosis, education, symptomatic treatments, and caregiver support. Funders should increase support for all aspects of LBD research to target the many needs identified by individuals and families living with LBD.

Establishing UK research priorities in smell and taste disorders: A James Lind alliance priority setting partnership

OBJECTIVES

To determine the top 10 research priorities in Smell and Taste Disorders (SATD).

DESIGN

After steering group was established, an electronic survey was disseminated to determine the list of questions. After removing out-of-scope responses, the remainder were consolidated to create summary questions. A literature search was conducted to remove already answered questions. A second survey was used to determine the top questions that formed the subject of final debate at a workshop attended by clinicians and patients to determine the top 10 priorities.

SETTING

A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLAPSP) was established by FifthSense to identify the top 10 research questions in SATDs in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANT

All stakeholders in SATDs (patients, healthcare professionals, family, carers, researchers).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Final 10 research priorities.

RESULTS

The 665 respondents to the initial survey provided 1698 research questions. Thirteen were out-of-scope and removed; remaining 1685 were then consolidated to form 147 summary questions. Following literature search and discussion with the steering group, 37 questions remained for the second survey, which 235 people responded. The top ten priorities agreed upon in the workshop covered themes of improved understanding of pathophysiologlogy, improving health services, and managing long-term effects of smell/taste disorders. The most important research question agreed was "How can we further our understanding of the mechanism of disease in the nerve pathways that affect smell and taste disorders, including where parosmia and phantosmia exist."

CONCLUSION

We report the top 10 research priorities in smell and taste disorders. These priorities will now empower researchers to secure research funding and provide the basis of the FifthSense research hub.

Commentary on Patient Advocacy and Research Priorities in Olfactory and Gustatory Disorders

Purpose of Review

This paper outlines the challenges faced by people with smell and taste disorders (SATDs) and why patient advocacy is crucial in addressing these. It includes recent findings in identifying research priorities in SATDs.

Recent Findings

A recent Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) conducted with the James Lind Alliance (JLA) has been completed and the top 10 research priorities in SATDs determined. Fifth Sense, a UK charity, has been working alongside patient and healthcare professions to drive awareness, education and research in this area.

Summary

Following the completion of the PSP, Fifth Sense have launched six Research Hubs to take forward these priorities and engage with researchers to carry out and deliver research that directly answers the questions raised by the results of the PSP. The six Research Hubs cover a different aspect of smell and taste disorders. Each hub is led by clinicians and researchers recognised for their expertise in their field, who will act as champions for their respective hub.

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.

Diabetes-related research priorities of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Germany

To investigate (i) the importance and priorities of research objectives for people with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM); (ii) subgroups with specific research priorities; (iii) associated factors (e.g., sociodemographic characteristics) of the subgroups. The cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2018 using data from 869 respondents (29.0% response, 31.2% female, mean age 61.3 years, 62.7% T2DM) from a German statutory health insurance population. Diabetes-related research priorities were assessed with a questionnaire. Subgroups and associated factors were identified using latent class analysis. Three subgroups were found in T1DM: (1) high priority for the research topic 'healing diabetes' and moderate priority for the research topic 'prevention of long-term complications', (2) priorities for simplifying handling (high) and stress reduction (moderate), (3) priorities for healing diabetes (high) and simplifying handling (high). Three subgroups were found in T2DM: (1) priorities for simplifying handling (moderate), diabetes prevention (moderate) and prevention of long-term complications (moderate), (2) priorities for stress reduction (high) and diabetes prevention (moderate), (3) priorities for simplifying handling (high) and stress reduction (high). Classes differed in age and HbA_1c. Knowledge about research priorities enables researchers to align their work with the needs of people with diabetes.

Made to measure—Selecting outcomes in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage research

There has been limited new high-level evidence generated to guide aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) management in the past decade. The choice of outcome measures used in aSAH clinical trials may be one of the factors hindering progress. In this narrative review we consider the current process for determining “what” to measure in aSAH and identify some of the shortcomings of these approaches. A consideration of the unique clinical course of aSAH is then discussed and how this impacts on selecting the best timepoints to assess change in the chosen constructs. We also review the how to critically appraise different measurement instruments and some of the issues with how these are applied in the context of aSAH. We conclude with current initiatives to improve outcome selection in aSAH and future directions in the research agenda.

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.

Priorities in Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research: The Patient Perspective

Purpose: We aimed to elicit patients' views of research priorities related to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Method:We used a modified nominal group technique in which participants with chronic lung conditions who had completed PR attended one of five meetings during which they generated ideas, discussed them with the group, and prioritized their top three topics. Afterward, they completed member checking and satisfaction questionnaires. Results:Fourteen participants (mean age 71 years) prioritized 25 topics, which included music as a motivator, education about the reason for various assessments and exercises, and ongoing patient assessment and follow-up. Most participants "totally agreed" that the summarized topics matched what they thought was important in PR research (75%) and that the meeting was a positive experience (100%). Participants indicated that the findings of this study accurately reflected their priorities. Conclusions:Individuals who have completed PR may have questions about programme components including assessment, treatment, and strategies for promoting motivation. To inform future research projects and identify knowledge translation needs, we will distribute a questionnaire to a larger sample of former PR patients to further prioritize the 25 topics identified in the meetings.

Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.

METHOD

STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Over 100 people from multiple disciplines and countries have been involved in co-designing STARDIT since 2019. STARDIT is the first open access web-based data-sharing system which standardises the way that information about initiatives is reported across diverse fields and disciplines, including information about which tasks were done by which stakeholders. STARDIT is designed to work with existing data standards. STARDIT data will be released into the public domain (CC0) and integrated into Wikidata; it works across multiple languages and is both human and machine readable. Reports can be updated throughout the lifetime of an initiative, from planning to evaluation, allowing anyone to be involved in reporting impacts and outcomes. STARDIT is the first system that enables sharing of standardised data about initiatives across disciplines. A working Beta version was publicly released in February 2021 (ScienceforAll.World/STARDIT). Subsequently, STARDIT reports have been created for peer-reviewed research in multiple journals and multiple research projects, demonstrating the usability. In addition, organisations including Cochrane and Australian Genomics have created prospective reports outlining planned initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems.

Patient involvement in priority-setting for medical research: A mini review of initiatives in the rare disease field

Patient involvement (PI) in determining medical research priorities is an important way to ensure that limited research funds are allocated to best serve patients. As a disease area for which research funds are limited, we see a particular utility for PI in priority-setting for medical research on rare diseases. In this review, we argue that PI initiatives are an important form of evidence for policymaking. We conducted a study to identify the extent to which PI initiatives are being conducted in the rare disease field, the features of such initiatives, the trends in the priorities elicited, and the extent to which translation into policy is reported in the academic literature. Here, we report the results of this exploratory review of the English-language literature gathered through online databases and search engines, with the aim of identifying journal articles published prior to December 2020, describing PI initiatives focused on determining priorities for medical research funding in the rare disease field. We identified seven recently-published articles and found that the majority made use of structured methodologies to ensure the robustness of the evidence produced, but found little reported practical implementation or concrete plans for implementation of the results of the initiatives. We conclude that priority-setting initiatives are meaningful mechanisms for involving patients in determining research directions. However, we highlight the importance of translation into policy as a necessary next step to fully utilize the results and move beyond well-intentioned exercises. Finally, we draw attention to the benefits of involving patients throughout this process.

International Foot and Ankle Osteoarthritis Consortium review and research agenda for diagnosis, epidemiology, burden, outcome assessment and treatment

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the available evidence relating to the diagnosis, epidemiology, burden, outcome assessment and treatment of foot and ankle osteoarthritis (OA) and to develop an agenda to guide future research.

METHOD

Members of the International Foot and Ankle Osteoarthritis Consortium compiled a narrative summary of the literature which formed the basis of an interactive discussion at the Osteoarthritis Research Society International World Congress in 2021, during which a list of 24 research agenda items were generated. Following the meeting, delegates were asked to rank the research agenda items on a 0 to 100 visual analogue rating scale (0 = not at all important to 100 = extremely important). Items scoring a mean of 70 or above were selected for inclusion.

RESULTS

Of the 45 delegates who attended the meeting, 31 contributed to the agenda item scoring. Nineteen research agenda items met the required threshold: three related to diagnosis, four to epidemiology, four to burden, three to outcome assessment and five to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Key knowledge gaps related to foot and ankle OA were identified, and a comprehensive agenda to guide future research planning was developed. Implementation of this agenda will assist in improving the understanding and clinical management of this common and disabling, yet relatively overlooked condition.

Exploration of whether socioeconomic factors affect the results of priority setting partnerships: updating the top 10 research priorities for the management of Parkinson's in an international setting

OBJECTIVES

Explore whether socioeconomic differences of patients affect the prioritisation of pre-existing research questions and explore the agreement between healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients in priority setting partnerships (PSPs).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective, three centre survey across UK (400 participants), Tuebingen (176 participants) and Luxembourg (303 participants). People with Parkinson's (PwP), research participants, relatives and HCP associated with three Parkinson's cohort studies were invited to participate, along with linked centres (clinical care settings, research groups, charities). Responders were encouraged to pass on the survey to friends/families/carers.

METHODS

The survey involved rating the importance of research questions on a Likert scale, allowing for the generation of one new question participants felt was particularly important. Collection of demographic information allowed for comparisons of priorities across a range of socioeconomic variables; the top 10 research priorities for each group were then compared. Questions added by participants were subject to a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

879 participants completed the survey (58% PwP, 22% family/friends, 13% HCP, 4% carers). Finding the best form of physiotherapy for PwP was the number one priority across the majority of analyses. HCP were the only subgroup not to place physiotherapy in the top 10. Factors most likely to affect prioritisation in PwP included educational level, presence of carer support and disease duration. There was little difference between other socioeconomic categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic factors modestly influenced some research priority ratings but did not significantly affect the top priority in most comparisons. Future studies must ensure patients from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds are recruited, ensuring results generalisable to the public while also identifying any key disparities in prioritisation. PSP should also take care that HCP do not skew results during prioritisation of questions, as in this study the most important priority to patients was not identified by professionals.

Setting the international research agenda for sarcoma together with patients and carers: first results of the Sarcoma Patient EuroNet (SPAEN) priority setting partnership

Background

Research in sarcomas has historically been the domain of scientists and clinicians attempting to understand the disease to develop effective treatments. This traditional approach of placing scientific rigor before the patient’s reality is changing. This evolution is reflected in the growth of patient-centered organizations and patient advocacy groups that seek to meaningfully integrate patients into the research process. The aims of this study are to identify the unanswered questions regarding sarcomas (including gastrointestinal stromal tumors and desmoid fibromatosis) from patient, carer, and clinical perspectives and examine how patients and carers want to be involved in sarcoma research.

Methods

The Patient-Powered Research Network of Sarcoma Patients EuroNet set up a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) in collaboration with stakeholders from the sarcoma research field. This PSP is largely based on the James Lind Alliance methodology.

Results

In total, 264 sarcoma patients (73%) and carers (27%) from all over the world participated in the online survey and covered the full spectrum of sarcomas. The topics mentioned were labeled in accordance with the Common Scientific Outline of the International Cancer Research Partnership and lists for potential research topics, advocacy topics, and requests for information were constructed. With regard to patient and carer involvement, 64% were very willing to be actively involved and mainly in the following areas: sharing perspectives, discussing patient-clinician interactions, and attending research meetings.

Conclusions

The first results of this sarcoma PSP identified important research questions, but also important topics for patient advocacy groups and further improvement of information materials. Sarcoma patients and carers have a strong wish to be involved in multiple aspects of sarcoma research. The next phase will identify the top 10 research priorities per tumor type. These priorities will provide guidance for research that will achieve greatest value and impact.

•

The results from this international sarcoma Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) identified important research questions.

•

This PSP also identified important topics for patient advocacy and requests for information.

•

Sarcoma patients and carers have a strong wish to be involved in multiple aspects of sarcoma research.

•

The next phase of this PSP will aim to prioritize the research questions per tumor type.

Pursuing Public Health Benefit Within National Genomic Initiatives: Learning From Different Policies

Introduction: Population-based genomic research is expected to deliver substantial public health benefits. National genomics initiatives are widespread, with large-scale collection and research of human genomic data. To date, little is known about the actual public health benefit that is yielded from such initiatives. In this study, we explore how public health benefit is being pursued in a selection of national genomics initiatives.

Methods: A mixed-method study was carried out, consisting of a literature-based comparison of 11 purposively sampled national genomics initiatives (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, United Kingdom (UK), and United States (USA)), and five semi-structured interviews with experts (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, UK, USA). It was analyzed to what extent and how public health benefit was pursued and then operationalized in each phase of an adapted public health policy cycle: agenda setting, governance, (research) strategy towards health benefit, implementation, evaluation.

Results: Public health benefit within national genomics initiatives was pursued in all initiatives and also operationalized in all phases of the public health policy cycle. The inclusion of public health benefit in genomics initiatives seemed dependent on the outcomes of agenda setting, such as the aims and values, as well as design of governance, for example involved actors and funding. Some initiatives focus on a research-based strategy to contribute to public health, while others focus on research translation into healthcare, or a combination of both. Evaluation of public health benefits could be performed qualitatively, such as assessing improved public trust, and/or quantitatively, e.g. research output or number of new diagnoses. However, the created health benefit for the general public, both short- and long-term, appears to be difficult to determine.

Conclusion: Genomics initiatives hold the potential to deliver health promises of population-based genomics. Yet, universal tools to measure public health benefit and clarity in roles and responsibilities of collaborating stakeholders are lacking. Advancements in both aspects will help to facilitate and achieve the expected impact of genomics initiatives and enable effective research translation, implementation, and ultimately improved public health.

Transitional care for patients with acute stroke-A priority-setting project

Background

The scope of this priority‐setting process is communication and collaboration in transitional care for patients with acute stroke. Actively involving persons with stroke and their family caregivers is important both in transitional care and when setting priorities for research. Established priority‐setting methods are time‐consuming and require extensive resources. They are therefore not feasible in small‐scale research. This article describes a pragmatic priority‐setting process to identify a prioritized top 10 list of research needs regarding transitional care for patients with acute stroke.

Methods

A pragmatic priority‐setting approach inspired by the James Lind Alliance was developed. It involves establishing a user group, identifying the research needs through an online survey, analysing and checking the research needs against systematic reviews, culminating in an online prioritization of the top 10 list.

Results

The process was completed in 7 months. A total of 122 patients, family caregivers, health personnel and caseworkers submitted 484 research needs, and 19 users prioritized the top 10 list. The list includes the categories ‘patients and caregivers’ needs and health literacy’, ‘health personnel's common understanding’, ‘information flow between health personnel and patients and caregivers’, ‘available interventions and follow‐up of patients and caregivers’, ‘interaction and collaboration between health personnel and caseworkers across hospital and primary healthcare’ and ‘disabilities after stroke’.

Conclusion

This paper outlines a pragmatic approach to identifying and prioritizing users' research needs that was completed in 7 months. The top 10 list resulting from this priority setting process can guide future research relating to communication and collaboration during the transition from hospital to the community for patients with stroke.

Patient and Public Contribution

Members of three stroke organizations participated in the advisory group. They gave feedback on the scope and the process, distributed the surveys and prioritized the top 10 list. Persons with stroke and their caregivers submitted research needs in the survey.

Canadian epilepsy priority-setting partnership: Toward a new national research agenda

BACKGROUND

Health research agendas are often set by researchers or by industry and may not reflect the needs and priorities of end users. This priority-setting partnership (PSP) for epilepsy was undertaken to identify the most pressing unanswered questions about epilepsy and seizures from the perspective of people with epilepsy (PWE) and their care providers.

METHODS

Using the methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance (JLA), evidence uncertainties were gathered via online surveys from stakeholders across Canada. Submissions were formed into summary questions and checked against existing evidence to determine if they were true uncertainties. Verified uncertainties were then ranked by patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers and a final workshop was held to reach a consensus on the top 10 priorities.

RESULTS

The final top 10 list reflects the priority areas of focus for research as identified by the Canadian epilepsy community, including genetic markers for diagnosis and treatment, concerns about living with the long-term effects of epilepsy, and addressing knowledge gaps in etiology and treatment approaches.

CONCLUSION

This project represents the first systematic evidence of patient- and clinician-centered research priorities for epilepsy. The results of this priority-setting exercise provide an opportunity for researchers and funding agencies to align their agendas with the values and needs of the epilepsy community in order to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) for PWE.

Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Participation in Prioritization of Research Questions in Pediatric Hospital Medicine

IMPORTANCE

The research agenda in pediatric hospital medicine has seldom considered the perspectives of young people, parents and caregivers, and health care professionals. Their perspectives may be useful in identifying questions on topics for research.

OBJECTIVE

To prioritize unanswered research questions in pediatric hospital medicine from the perspectives of young people, parents/caregivers, and health care professionals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between August 4, 2020, and August 19, 2021, two online surveys and a virtual workshop were conducted, using modified Delphi technique and nominal group technique. Young people, parents/caregivers, and health care professionals with experiences in pediatric hospital medicine in Canada were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The established James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method was used. In phase 1, a survey collected unanswered questions regarding pediatric hospital medicine via 3 open-ended questions. Survey responses were used to develop summary questions that went through an evidence-checking process. Unanswered questions were brought to a phase 2 interim prioritization survey. The top 10 unanswered research questions in pediatric hospital medicine were established at the final priority setting workshop.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Survey responses, top 10 research questions.

RESULTS

The phase 1 survey was completed by 188 participants (148 of 167 [89%] females; 17 of 167 [10%] males; mean [SD] age, 39.5 [12.4] years) and generated 495 unanswered research questions and comments, of which 58 were deemed out of scope. The remaining 437 responses were grouped into themes (eg, communication, shared decision-making, health service delivery, and health service management) and then refined to 75 unanswered research questions. Of these 75, only 4 questions had sufficient evidence. To make the number of questions in phase 2 manageable, 21 questions submitted by only 1 respondent were eliminated. Fifty unanswered research questions were included in the phase 2 survey, which was completed by 201 participants (165 of 186 [89%] females; 19 of 186 [10%] males; mean [SD] age, 40.0 [11.0] years). A short list of 16 questions-the top 10 questions from patient partners (youths, parents/caregivers) and clinicians-was presented at the final priority setting workshop and the top 10 questions were prioritized. The top 10 questions focused on the care of special inpatient populations (eg, children with medical complexity), communication, shared decision-making, support strategies in the hospital, mental health supports, shortening length of stay, and supporting Indigenous patients, parents/caregivers, and families.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This patient-oriented pediatric hospital medicine priority setting partnership identified the most important unanswered research questions focused on the care of children in the hospital. These questions provide a possible roadmap for research on areas deemed important to young people, parents/caregivers, and clinicians.