Defining Priorities for Future Research: Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership

The academic impact of paediatric research agendas: a descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Extracellular Vesicles: Therapeutic Potential in Organ Transplantation

At present, organ transplantation remains the most appropriate therapy for patients with end-stage organ failure. However, the field of organ transplantation is still facing many challenges, including the shortage of organ donors, graft function damage caused by organ metastasis, and antibody-mediated immune rejection. It is therefore urgently necessary to find new and effective treatment. Stem cell therapy has been regarded as a "regenerative medicine technology." Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), as the most common source of cells for stem cell therapy, play an important role in regulating innate and adaptive immune responses and have been widely used in clinical trials for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Increasing evidence has shown that MSCs mainly rely on paracrine pathways to exert immunomodulatory functions. In addition, mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) are the main components of paracrine substances of MSCs. Herein, an overview of the application of the function of MSCs and MSC-EVs in organ transplantation will focus on the progress reported in recent experimental and clinical findings and explore their uses for graft preconditioning and recipient immune tolerance regulation. Additionally, the limitations on the use of MSC and MSC-EVs are also discussed, covering the isolation of exosomes and preservation techniques. Finally, the opportunities and challenges for translating MSCs and MSC-EVs into clinical practice of organ transplantation are also evaluated.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

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

Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders.

METHODS

A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution's mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.

Consumer Engagement in Perioperative Clinical Trials

Consumer engagement (patient and public involvement) in perioperative medicine research is in its infancy. The patient experience and family/carer perspectives can provide an extra layer of insight to give more understanding as to what, why, and how we do research. Patients who have undergone surgery have a unique understanding of the issues, concerns, wants, and needs that they learned as a patient-they, therefore, can be considered as a professional given their experience(s)-thus warranting recognition as a partner in research. Knowledge of the consumer engagement literature and availability of resources should support anesthesia researchers aiming to include these perspectives in their research. This includes several existing engagement frameworks and assessment tools. We provide a framework for consumer engagement for adoption into anesthesia and other perioperative research. By incorporating the patient or caregiver into the design, funding application(s), data collection, and interpretation of the findings can be beneficial to all. This includes promoting knowledge and access to clinical trials, the wording of participant consent and information forms, methods of data collection, selection of important outcomes, and dissemination of results.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Patient-centred clinical trial design

Patient involvement in clinical trial design can facilitate the recruitment and retention of participants as well as potentially increase the uptake of the tested intervention and the impact of the findings on patient outcomes. Despite these benefits, patients still have very limited involvement in designing and conducting trials in nephrology. Many trials do not address research questions and outcomes that are important to patients, including patient-reported outcomes that reflect how patients feel and function. This limitation can undermine the relevance, reliability and value of trial-based evidence for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy. However, efforts to involve patients with kidney disease are increasing across all stages of the trial process from priority setting, to study design (including selection of outcomes and approaches to improve participant recruitment and retention) and dissemination and implementation of the findings. Harnessing the patient voice in designing trials can ensure that efforts and resources are directed towards patient-centred trials that address the needs, concerns and priorities of patients living with kidney disease with the aim of achieving transformative improvements in care and outcomes.

A National Survey Comparing Patients' and Transplant Professionals' Research Priorities in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study

We aimed to identify, assess, compare and map research priorities of patients and professionals in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. The project followed 3 steps. 1) Focus group interviews identified patients' (n = 22) research priorities. 2) A nationwide survey assessed and compared the priorities in 292 patients and 175 professionals. 3) Priorities were mapped to the 4 levels of Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework. The 13 research priorities (financial pressure, medication taking, continuity of care, emotional well-being, return to work, trustful relationships, person-centredness, organization of care, exercise and physical fitness, graft functioning, pregnancy, peer contact and public knowledge of transplantation), addressed all framework levels: patient (n = 7), micro (n = 3), meso (n = 2), and macro (n = 1). Comparing each group's top 10 priorities revealed that continuity of care received highest importance rating from both (92.2% patients, 92.5% professionals), with 3 more agreements between the groups. Otherwise, perspectives were more diverse than congruent: Patients emphasized patient level priorities (emotional well-being, graft functioning, return to work), professionals those on the meso level (continuity of care, organization of care). Patients' research priorities highlighted a need to expand research to the micro, meso and macro level. Discrepancies should be recognized to avoid understudying topics that are more important to professionals than to patients.

Sexually transmitted infection (STI) research priority-setting: a two-stage study including the perspectives of patients, the public, clinicians and stakeholders

Objectives

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research priority-setting remains limited, especially for non-HIV STI. We identify and compare the top 10 patient and public STI research priorities with those of clinicians and STI stakeholders.

Methods

This two-stage study was conducted in May–August 2019. First, STI research priorities were canvassed through qualitative questionnaires issued to all patients attending a large sexual health clinic, all clinicians in region-wide mailing lists, all stakeholders identified through existing networks and the Charity Commission database, and to the Liverpool public. Raw responses were organised by theme into a shortlist of 25. In stage 2, these were ranked through priority-setting activities by telephone with patients and the public (n=8) and some clinicians (n=3), and in two workshops with clinicians (n=26) and stakeholders (n=5), respectively. The top 10 priorities were compared.

Results

Of 373 surveys submitted, 106 were analysed (83 patient and public; 23 clinician and stakeholder). Exclusions included lack of completion and responses out of scope. Among patient and public respondents, 55% (n=46) were aged 18–24 years, 51% (n=42) identified as heterosexual women and 23% (n=19) as men who have sex with men. Clinicians included all cadres; stakeholders were academics, commissioners and third sector representatives. In stage 2, 4 of 10 themes (STI education, targeted services for high-risk groups, antibiotic resistance and counselling for those with STI) were prioritised by all. Remote STI services and rapid diagnostics also ranked highly but the rationale differed between groups.

Conclusion

This is the first non-HIV STI research priority-setting exercise to be reported in the UK. It identifies overlaps and differences between public and provider concerns, highlights gaps in the public understanding of STI research, and shows how PPI can promote research responsive to the concerns of both those who use and deliver services.

Research priorities for oral healthcare: agenda setting from the practitioners' perspective

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop a research agenda based on the most important information needs concerning the effects and outcomes of oral healthcare provided by oral healthcare professionals (OHPs).

METHODS

A two-stage survey study was used to identify and prioritise topics for future research. The first survey generated topics based on information needs by OHPs. Topics were clustered thematically and overlapping topics were merged in 84 research themes. In the second survey, respondents selected their top 5 from the 84 research themes. Themes were sorted by the rank number based on rank sum.

RESULTS

In the first survey, 937 topics were suggested. Almost half (n = 430, 46%) were identified as topics related to endodontology, cariology, oral medicine/surgery or tooth restoration. Topics were grouped in 84 research themes, covering 10 research domains. These were prioritised by 235 OHPs. Behaviour change for oral health and oral healthcare for geriatric patients ranked as most important.

CONCLUSIONS

Consultation of OHPs has resulted in a research agenda, which can be used to inform programming future oral health research. The highest prioritised research themes have an interdisciplinary nature, mainly concern oral disease prevention and are under-represented in the current oral healthcare research portfolio.

Patient oriented research in mental health: matching laboratory to life and beyond in Canada

As patient-oriented research gains popularity in clinical research, the lack of patient input in foundational science grows more evident. Research has shown great utility in active partnerships between patient partners and scientists, yet many researchers are still hesitant about listening to the voices of those with lived experience guide and shape their experiments. Mental health has been a leading area for patient movements such as survivor-led research, however the stigma experienced by these patients creates difficulties not present in other health disciplines. The emergence of COVID-19 has also created unique circumstances that need to be addressed. Through this lens, we have taken experiences from our patient partners, students, and primary investigator to create recommendations for the better facilitation of patient-oriented research in foundational science in Canada. With these guidelines, from initial recruitment and leading to sustaining meaningful partnerships, we hope to encourage other researchers that patient-oriented research is necessary for the future of mental health research and foundational science.

Research priorities in advanced heart failure: James Lind alliance priority setting partnership

Objective

To determine research priorities in advanced heart failure (HF) for patients, carers and healthcare professionals.

Methods

Priority setting partnership using the systematic James Lind Alliance method for ranking and setting research priorities. An initial open survey of patients, carers and healthcare professionals identified respondents’ questions, which were categorised to produce a list of summary research questions; questions already answered in existing literature were removed. In a second survey of patients, carers and healthcare professionals, respondents ranked the summary research questions in order of priority. The top 25 unanswered research priorities were then considered at a face-to-face workshop using nominal group technique to agree on a ‘top 10’.

Results

192 respondents submitted 489 responses each containing one or more research uncertainty. Out-of-scope questions (35) were removed, and collating the responses produced 80 summary questions. Questions already answered in the literature (15) were removed. In the second survey, 65 questions were ranked by 128 respondents. The top 10 priorities were developed at a consensus meeting of stakeholders and included a focus on quality of life, psychological support, the impact on carers, role of the charity sector and managing prognostic uncertainty. Ranked priorities by physicians and patients were remarkably divergent.

Conclusions

Engaging stakeholders in setting research priorities led to a novel set of research questions that might not have otherwise been considered. These priorities can be used by researchers and funders to direct future research towards the areas which matter most to people living with advanced HF.

The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To summarise study descriptions of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to the priority setting partnership (PSP) process and how this process is used to identify uncertainties and to develop lists of top 10 priorities.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

The Embase, Medline (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library as of October 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting the use of JLA process steps and the development of a list of top 10 priorities, with adult participants aged 18 years.

DATA EXTRACTION

A data extraction sheet was created to collect demographic details, study aims, sample and patient group details, PSP details (eg, stakeholders), lists of top 10 priorities, descriptions of JLA facilitator roles and the PSP stages followed. Individual and comparative appraisals were discussed among the scoping review authors until agreement was reached.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 431 potentially relevant studies published in 2010-2018, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. JLA process participants were patients, carers and clinicians, aged 18 years, who had experience with the study-relevant diagnoses. All studies reported having a steering group, although partners and stakeholders were described differently across studies. The number of JLA PSP process steps varied from four to eight. Uncertainties were typically collected via an online survey hosted on, or linked to, the PSP website. The number of submitted uncertainties varied across studies, from 323 submitted by 58 participants to 8227 submitted by 2587 participants.

CONCLUSIONS

JLA-based PSP makes a useful contribution to identifying research questions. Through this process, patients, carers and clinicians work together to identify and prioritise unanswered uncertainties. However, representation of those with different health conditions depends on their having the capacity and resources to participate. No studies reported difficulties in developing their top 10 priorities.

A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Different methods to examine research gaps have been described, but there are still no standard methods for identifying, prioritizing, or reporting research gaps. This study aimed to describe the methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps in health research.

METHODS

A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was carried out. We included all study types describing or reporting on methods to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. Data synthesis is both quantitative and qualitative.

RESULTS

Among 1,938 identified documents, 139 articles were selected for analysis; 90 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 23 (17%) aimed to determine research priorities, and 26 (19%) had both aims. The most frequent methods in the review were aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included knowledge synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80, 73%). Among 49 studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were both primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) reports. Finally, 52 (37%) articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research.

People with lived experience (PWLE) of depression: describing and reflecting on an explicit patient engagement process within depression research priority setting in Alberta, Canada

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

The Alberta Depression Research Priority Setting Project aimed to meaningfully involve patients, families and clinicians in determining a research agenda aligned to the needs of Albertans who have experienced depression. The project was modeled after a process developed in the UK by the James Lind Alliance and adapted to fit the Alberta, Canada context. This study describes the processes used to ensure the voices of people with lived experience of depression were integrated throughout the project stages. The year long project culminated with a facilitated session to identify the top essential areas of depression research focus. People with lived experience were engaged as part of the project's Steering Committee, as survey participants and as workshop participants. It is hoped this process will guide future priority setting opportunities and advance depression research in Alberta.

ABSTRACT

Background The Depression Research Priority Setting (DRPS) project has the clear aim of describing the patient engagement process used to identify depression research priorities and to reflect on the successes of this engagement approach, positive impacts and opportunities for improvement. To help support patient-oriented depression research priority setting in Alberta, the Patient Engagement (PE) Platform of the Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Unit designed, along with the support of their partners in addictions and mental health, an explit process to engage patients in the design and execution of the DRPS. Methods The UK's James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) method was adapted into a six step process to ensure voices of "people with lived experience" (PWLE) with depression were included throughout the project stages. This study uses an explicit and parallel patient engagement process throughout each estage of the PSP designed by the PE Platform. Patient engagement was divided into a five step process: i) Awareness and relationship building; ii) Co-designing and co-developing a shared decision making process; iii) Collaborative communication; iv) Collective sensemaking; and v) Acknowledgement, celebration and recognition. A formative evaluation of the six PE processes was undertaken to explore the success of the parallel patient engagement process. Results This project was successful in engaging people with lived depression experience as partners in research priority setting, incorporating their voices into the discussions and decisions that led to the top 25 depression research questions. Conclusions The DRPS project has positively contributed to depression research in Canada by identifying the priorities of Albertans who have experienced depression for depression research. Dissemination activities to promote further knowledge exchange of prioritized research questions, with emphasis on the importance of process in engaging the voices of PWLE of depression are planned.

Defining Future Research Priorities in Donation and Organ and Stem Cell Transplantation With Patients, Families, Caregivers, Healthcare Providers and Researchers Within the Canadian National Transplant Research Program

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Background

Patients, families, and caregivers have a unique understanding of the diseases they live with and provide care for every day. Their experience and expertise are important and should be taken into consideration when determining research priorities. The aim of this study was to gather the perspectives of Canadian patients, families, caregivers, researchers, and healthcare professionals on what research priorities were important to them in the field of organ and hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and donation within the Canadian National Transplant Research Program (CNTRP).

Methods

The CNTRP developed a national consultation process, which included a Web-based survey and in-person workshop, to ascertain and validate the viewpoints of the Canadian donation and transplant community. The Web-based survey identified 3 principal research priorities (increasing donation, developing better antirejection drugs and developing tolerance), which were further refined and prioritized during the one-and-a-half day national workshop held in Toronto in November 2015.

Results

A total of 505 participants answered the Web-based survey, and 46 participants (28 patients, 12 researchers and 6 healthcare professionals) participated in the in-person workshop. Workshop participants ranked the following 2 priorities as the most important in the fields of donation, HCT, and solid organ transplantation: methods for developing a culture of donation (within healthcare organizations and throughout society); and methods for improving graft survival and antirejection therapy.

Conclusion

The CNTRP will use these results to prioritize future research projects and studies in donation, HCT, and solid organ transplantation in the years to come.

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature

Background

Current research suggests that while patients are becoming more engaged across the health delivery spectrum, this involvement occurs most often at the pre-preparation stage to identify ‘high-level’ priorities in health ecosystem priority setting, and at the preparation phase for health research.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic rapid review of the literature is to describe the evidence that does exist in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystem and health research.

Data sources

HealthStar (via OVID); CINAHL; Proquest Databases; and Scholar’s Portal.

Study eligibility criteria

i) published in English; ii) published within the timeframe of 2007—Current (10 years) unless the report/article was formative in synthesizing key considerations of patient engagement in health ecosystem and health research priority setting; iii) conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia/New Zealand, or Scandinavian countries.

Study appraisal and synthesis

i) Is the research valid, sound, and applicable?; ii) what outcomes can we potentially expect if we implement the findings from this research?; iii) will the target population (i.e., health researchers and practitioners) be able to use this research?. A summary of findings from each of the respective processes was synthesized to highlight key information that would support decision-making for researchers when determining the best priority setting process to apply for their specific patient-oriented research.

Results

Seventy articles from the UK, US, Canada, Netherlands and Australia were selected for review. Results were organized into two tiers of public and patient engagement in prioritization: Tier 1—Deliberative and Tier 2—Consultative. Highly structured patient and public engagement planning activities include the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (UK), Dialogue Method (Netherlands), Global Evidence Mapping (Australia), and the Deep Inclusion Method/CHoosing All Together (US).

Limitations

The critical study limitations include challenges in comprehensively identifying the patient engagement literature for review, bias in article selection due to the identified scope, missed information due to a more limited use of exhaustive search strategies (e.g., in-depth hand searching), and the heterogeneity of reported study findings.

Conclusion

The four public and patient engagement priority setting processes identified were successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based, specific to the priorities of stakeholders engaged in the process. The processes were robust, strategic and aimed to promote equity in patient voices. Key limitations identified a lack of evaluation data on the success and extent in which patients were engaged. Issues pertaining to feasibility of stakeholder engagement, coordination, communication and limited resources were also considered.

Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties

INTRODUCTION

People with complex wounds are more likely to be elderly, living with multimorbidity and wound related symptoms. A variety of products are available for managing complex wounds and a range of healthcare professionals are involved in wound care, yet there is a lack of good evidence to guide practice and services. These factors create uncertainty for those who deliver and those who manage wound care. Formal priority setting for research and implementation topics is needed to more accurately target the gaps in treatment and services. We solicited practitioner and manager uncertainties in wound care and held a priority setting workshop to facilitate a collaborative approach to prioritising wound care-related uncertainties.

METHODS

We recruited healthcare professionals who regularly cared for patients with complex wounds, were wound care specialists or managed wound care services. Participants submitted up to five wound care uncertainties in consultation with their colleagues, via an on-line survey and attended a priority setting workshop. Submitted uncertainties were collated, sorted and categorised according professional group. On the day of the workshop, participants were divided into four groups depending on their profession. Uncertainties submitted by their professional group were viewed, discussed and amended, prior to the first of three individual voting rounds. Participants cast up to ten votes for the uncertainties they judged as being high priority. Continuing in the professional groups, the top 10 uncertainties from each group were displayed, and the process was repeated. Groups were then brought together for a plenary session in which the final priorities were individually scored on a scale of 0-10 by participants. Priorities were ranked and results presented. Nominal group technique was used for generating the final uncertainties, voting and discussions.

RESULTS

Thirty-three participants attended the workshop comprising; 10 specialist nurses, 10 district nurses, seven podiatrists and six managers. Participants had been qualified for a mean of 20.7 years with a mean of 16.8 years of wound care experience. One hundred and thirty-nine uncertainties were submitted electronically and a further 20 were identified on the day of the workshop following lively, interactive group discussions. Twenty-five uncertainties from the total of 159 generated made it to the final prioritised list. These included six of the 20 new uncertainties. The uncertainties varied in focus, but could be broadly categorised into three themes: service delivery and organisation, patient centred care and treatment options. Specialist nurses were more likely to vote for service delivery and organisation topics, podiatrists for patient centred topics, district nurses for treatment options and operational leads for a broad range.

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative priority setting project is the first to engage front-line clinicians in prioritising research and implementation topics in wound care. We have shown that it is feasible to conduct topic prioritisation in a short time frame. This project has demonstrated that with careful planning and rigor, important questions that are raised in the course of clinicians' daily decision making can be translated into meaningful research and implementation initiatives that could make a difference to service delivery and patient care.

Clinical Evaluation of Modified Release and Immediate Release Tacrolimus Formulations

The science of drug delivery has evolved considerably and has led to the development of multiple sustained release formulations. Each of these formulations can present particular challenges in terms of clinical evaluation and necessitate careful study to identify their optimal use in practice. Tacrolimus is an immunosuppressive agent that is widely used in organ transplant recipients. However, it is poorly soluble, has an unpredictable pharmacokinetic profile subject to important genetic polymorphisms and drug-drug interactions, and has a narrow therapeutic index. For these reasons, it represents an agent that could benefit from modified release formulations to overcome these limitations. The objective of this review is to discuss the clinical evaluation of immediate and modified release tacrolimus formulations in renal transplant recipients. Clinical trials from early development of immediate release tacrolimus to formulation-specific post-marketing trials of modified release tacrolimus formulations are reviewed with an emphasis on key elements relating to trial design end endpoint assessment. Particular elements that can be addressed with formulation alterations, such as pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenomics, and toxicity and corresponding clinical evaluations are discussed. In addition, current knowledge gaps in the clinical evaluation of immediate and modified release tacrolimus formulations are discussed to highlight potential avenues for the future development of different tacrolimus formulations with outcomes relevant to the regulators, the transplant community, and to transplant recipients. This review shows that new formulations may alter tacrolimus bioavailability, alleviate certain adverse events while potentially enhancing patient convenience.

Research priority setting in organ transplantation: a systematic review

Barriers to access and long-term complications remain a challenge in transplantation. Further advancements may be achieved through research priority setting with patient engagement to strengthen its relevance. We evaluated research priority setting in solid organ transplantation and described stakeholder priorities. Databases were searched to October 2016. We synthesized the findings descriptively. The 28 studies (n = 2071 participants) addressed kidney [9 (32%)], heart [7 (25%)], liver [3 (11%)], lung [1 (4%)], pancreas [1 (4%)], and nonspecified organ transplantation [7 (25%)] using consensus conferences, expert panel meetings, workshops, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and the Delphi technique. Nine (32%) reported patient involvement. The 336 research priorities addressed the following: organ donation [43 priorities (14 studies)]; waitlisting and allocation [43 (10 studies)]; histocompatibility and immunology [31 (8 studies)]; immunosuppression [21 (10 studies)]; graft-related complications [38 (13 studies)]; recipient (non-graft-related) complications [86 (14 studies)]; reproduction [14 (1 study)], psychosocial and lifestyle [49 (7 studies)]; and disparities in access and outcomes [10 (4 studies)]. The priorities identified were broad but only one-third of initiatives engaged patients/caregivers, and details of the process were lacking. Setting research priorities in an explicit manner with patient involvement can guide investment toward the shared priorities of patients and health professionals.