RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Experiencing physical symptoms that are medically not yet explained (MNYES) is associated with considerable burden in daily life. Research priorities in this area have been primarily investigator-driven. The present study identifies the top 10 research priorities, incorporating the views of patients, carers and healthcare professionals. METHODS: This study used the Priority Setting Partnership approach in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). The priority setting approach combines survey-based data from patients with a specific disorder/condition and relevant stakeholders (i.e., caregivers and healthcare professionals) with input from group meetings and a final priority setting consensus meeting. There were three consecutive phases: (1) online survey with an open-ended question to collect topics for future scientific research (N = 345 participants); (2) an online survey among stakeholders to prioritise the research questions generated in Phase 1 (N = 400); and (3) a final multi-stakeholder consensus meeting, held over two half-days to determine the final top 10 research priorities for the Netherlands (day 1 N = 25, day 2 N = 24). RESULTS: Phase 1 resulted in 572 topics, which were reduced to 37 summary research questions. Phase 2 resulted in 18 research priorities, that were ranked and the top 10 priorities were established during the final consensus meeting. The top 10 research priorities included three main themes: optimising efficient diagnosis and treatment, aetiology and prevention, and coping with MNYES. CONCLUSION: The top 10 priorities provide insight into what is most important for future research into MNYES from the perspective of patients, carers and healthcare professionals.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To use robust consensus methods with individuals with lived breast cancer experience to agree the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery in the UK. METHODS: Research uncertainties related to information and support for breast cancer surgery submitted by patients and carers were analysed thematically to generate summary questions for inclusion in an online Delphi survey. Individuals with lived breast cancer experience completed two Delphi rounds including feedback in which they selected their top 10 research priorities from the list provided. The most highly ranked priorities from the survey were discussed at an in-person prioritisation workshop at which the final top 10 was agreed. RESULTS: The 543 uncertainties submitted by 156 patients/carers were categorised into 63 summary questions for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Of the 237 individuals completing Round 1, 190 (80.2%) participated in Round 2. The top 25 survey questions were carried forward for discussion at the in-person prioritisation workshop at which 17 participants from across the UK agreed the final top 10 research priorities. Key themes included ensuring patients were fully informed about all treatment options and given balanced, tailored information to support informed decision-making and empower their recovery. Equity of access to treatments including contralateral mastectomy for symmetry was also considered a research priority. CONCLUSION: This process has identified the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Work is now needed to develop studies to address these important questions.

RESUMEN

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15-39 years) diagnosed with cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs. These needs could be better addressed through research that is focused on the topics that matter most to them. However, there is currently no patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer in Canada. This manuscript describes the early development and project protocol for a priority-setting partnership (PSP) for establishing the top 10 research priorities for AYA cancer in Canada. This project follows the PSP methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in research prioritization. The steps of a JLA PSP include establishing a steering group and project partners, gathering uncertainties, data processing and verifying uncertainties, interim priority setting, and a final priority setting workshop. The AYA cancer PSP will result in a top 10 list of research priorities identified by Canadian AYA patients, caregivers, and clinicians that will be published and shared broadly with the research community. The first steering group meeting was held in April 2023, and the project is ongoing. The establishment of a patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer will catalyze a long-term and impactful research focus and ultimately improve outcomes for AYA patients with cancer in Canada.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Previous priority setting exercises have sought to involve children, but in the final reporting, it is evident that few children had been engaged through the process. A primary aim in the Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership was to find out from children what they want research to focus on. We report on our experience to inform methods of engagement with children in future James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships and similar exercises. METHODS: We followed the James Lind Alliance process, collecting and shortlisting questions via online surveys with adult survivors of childhood cancer, carers, and professionals, and holding a final workshop. Alongside this, a parallel process to collect and prioritise questions from children was undertaken. We created animations for parents/carers to explain the project and surveys to children, gathered questions via online surveys and held a workshop with children to identify their priorities. RESULTS: Sixty-one children and young people with cancer and 10 siblings, aged 3-21 years, submitted 252 potential questions/topics via the surveys. Submissions were refined into 24 summary questions. These questions were discussed at a workshop with eight children; they also added more questions on topics of importance to them. Workshop participants prioritised the Top 5 questions; top priority was, 'How can we make being in hospital a better experience for children and young people? (like having better food, internet, toys, and open visiting so other family members can be more involved in the child's care)'. The Top 5 also included cancer prevention, treatments closer to home, early diagnosis, and emotional support. These questions were taken to the final workshop at which the Top 10 priorities were decided, all five children's priorities were reflected in the final Top 10. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that it is possible to successfully involve children directly in setting priorities for future research. Future priority setting exercises on topics relevant to children, should seek to include their views. The Children's Cancer Top 10 priorities reflect the voices of children and should inform the funding of future research.

Priority Setting Partnerships find out what areas of research are important to patients, families, and the professionals who care for them. Few Priority Setting Partnerships have involved children, so what matters to them may not have been well-represented. The Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership aimed to find out directly from children what research we should do. We collected questions/topics for research from children using online surveys. We made animations to explain the project and surveys to children. Two-hundred and fifty-two questions were sent in by 61 children and young people with cancer and 10 siblings. We grouped similar questions together into 24 summary questions. Summary questions were discussed at a workshop with eight children. Workshop participants added more questions on topics that mattered to them, and decided their Top 5 questions. The top question was, 'How can we make being in hospital a better experience for children and young people? (like having better food, internet, toys, and open visiting so other family members can be more involved in the child's care)'. The Top 5 questions included: preventing cancer, having treatments nearer home, early diagnosis, and emotional support. These questions were taken to the final project workshop, this was with adults, including childhood cancer survivors, where the Top 10 priorities were decided. All five children's priorities were included in the Top 10. We have shown it is possible to successfully involve children in setting research priorities. Future priority setting exercises on topics that affect children should actively seek and include their views.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a rare condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The priorities for future research in PH according to patients, caregivers, and clinicians have not been established. We performed a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership in Canada. An initial survey of 249 respondents (76% patients and/or caregivers, 12.5% clinicians) generated 1588 questions, which were combined into 187 summary questions. An evidence check identified 352 systematic reviews and guidelines which were mapped to the summary questions, which determined that 157 summary questions were unanswered by existing research. An interim prioritisation survey (240 respondents, 66% patients and/or caregivers, 18% clinicians) asked respondents to choose which of the 157 summary questions were among the 30-40 most important. In a final workshop patients, caregivers, and clinicians discussed and ranked the top 25 questions from the interim survey to identify the Top 10 PH research priorities. These results will inform researchers and funding bodies about patient, caregiver, and clinician priorities for future research on PH.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritize the top 10 research questions for PsA. METHODS: The British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians, supported by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). This PSP followed the established three-stage JLA process: first, an online survey of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians to identify PsA questions, asking, 'What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?' The questions were checked against existing evidence to establish 'true uncertainties' and grouped as 'indicative questions' reflecting the overarching themes. Then a second online survey ranked the 'true uncertainties' by importance. Finally, a workshop including people living with PsA and clinician stakeholders finalized the top 10 research priorities. RESULTS: The initial survey attracted 317 respondents (69% people living with PsA, 15% carers), with 988 questions. This generated 46 indicative questions. In the second survey, 422 respondents (78% people living with PsA, 4% carers) prioritized these. Eighteen questions were taken forward to the final online workshop. The top unanswered PsA research question was 'What is the best strategy for managing patients with psoriatic arthritis including non-drug and drug treatments?' Other top 10 priorities covered diagnosis, prognosis, outcome assessment, flares, comorbidities and other aspects of treatment (https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk). CONCLUSION: The top 10 priorities will guide PsA research and enable PsA researchers and those who fund research to know the most important questions for people living with PsA.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership was developed to identify research priorities in breast cancer surgery from individuals with lived experience, at high genetic risk of breast cancer, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: 'Uncertainties' were collected using an online survey. Following an evidence check and development of summary questions, an interim survey asked participants to rank their top 10 research priorities from the question list. Top-ranked questions from patient/carer, high-risk and professional groups were carried forward for discussion to a final online prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: 260 participants (101 patients/carers, 156 HCPs) submitted 940 uncertainties via the initial survey. These were analysed thematically into 128 summary questions in six topic areas. Following evidence checking, 59 questions were included in the interim survey which was completed by 572 respondents. Marked differences were seen in questions prioritised by patients/carers, HCPs and women at high-risk. The top eight priorities in patient/carer and professional groups and top two priorities for high-risk women were carried forward to the online workshop at which 22 participants discussed and agreed the final top 10. Key themes included de-escalation of breast and axillary surgery, factors impacting the development/detection of locoregional recurrence and optimal provision of support for informed treatment decision-making. CONCLUSION: The top 10 research priorities in breast cancer surgery have been agreed. However, the observed differences in research priorities identified by patients and professional groups were not anticipated. Top priorities from both groups should inform future UK breast cancer surgical research, to ensure that it addresses questions that are important to breast cancer community as a whole.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: To establish outcomes of a priority setting partnership between participants with diabetes mellitus and clinicians to identify the top 10 research priorities for preventing and treating diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). METHODS: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process was adapted into a digital format which involved a pilot survey to identify understandable uncertainties with high relevance for participants tested by calculating the content validity index; a main survey answered by 53 participants living with diabetes and 49 clinicians; and a final digital workshop to process and prioritise the final top 10 research priorities. RESULTS: The content validity index was satisfactory for 20 out of 25 uncertainties followed by minor changes and one additional uncertainty. After we processed the 26 uncertainties from the main survey and seven current guidelines, a list of 28 research uncertainties remained for review and discussion in the digital workshop. The final top 10 research priorities included the organisation of diabetes care; screening of diabetes, impaired blood circulation, neuropathy, and skin properties; vascular surgical treatment; importance of self-care; help from significant others; pressure relief; and prevention of infection. CONCLUSION: The top 10 research priorities for preventing and treating DFUs represent consensus areas from persons living with diabetes and clinicians to guide future research. These research priorities can justify and inform strategic allocation of research funding. The digitalisation of James Lind Alliance methodology was feasible.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To determine research priorities in PICU nutrition, which represent the shared priorities of patients, parents, carers, and PICU healthcare professionals within the United Kingdom. DESIGN: A national multiphase priority setting methodology in partnership with the James Lind Alliance delivered over 16 months (June 2020-September 2021). Part 1: a national scoping survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties related to PICU nutrition. Part 2: summarizing and evidence-checking the submitted uncertainties. Part 3: interim prioritization survey. Part 4: consensus workshop. SETTING: PICU. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, parents, and carers of patients who had been admitted to PICU, and PICU healthcare professionals involved in the treatment of these patients within the United Kingdom. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A national scoping survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties related to PICU nutrition. In the first survey, 165 topic ideas were suggested (12% by parents/carers and 88% by PICU healthcare professionals). These were categorized into 57 summary questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the proposed summary questions had not already been answered. Forty were judged to be true uncertainties following a systematic literature review. These 40 uncertainties were grouped into eight themes for the second interim survey, which asked respondents to prioritize their top research questions. One hundred and forty participants contributed to this second interim survey. A final shortlist of 25 questions was derived, with the top 18 questions taken to a multistakeholder workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. CONCLUSIONS: This research identified important research gaps in the management of patients in PICU. Areas that need to be addressed as a priority include energy requirements in ventilated neonates, nutritional supplementation of probiotics to manage and prevent sepsis, the impact of postintensive care syndrome on nutrition and growth, and when to commence parenteral (IV) nutrition. The challenge now is to refine and deliver answers to these research priorities.

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Overview of the methods used for a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article are to (i) provide a brief overview of the JLA-facilitated PSP process; (ii) outline how research uncertainties were initially processed in the AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP; and (iii) delineate the methods for interim prioritization and the priority setting workshop. METHODS: A steering group was created to define the scope for the PSP, organize its activities, and establish protocols for decision-making. A survey was created asking what questions on the diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of DCM should be answered by future research. Results from the survey were sorted into summary questions. Several databases were searched to identify literature that already answered these summary questions. The final list of summary questions was distributed by survey for interim prioritization. Participants were asked to select the top ten most important summary questions. The questions that were ranked the highest were discussed at an in-person consensus workshop. RESULTS: The initial survey yielded a total of 3404 potential research questions. Of the in-scope submissions, 988 were related to diagnosis, 1324 to treatment, and 615 to long-term management of DCM. A total of 76 summary questions were developed to reflect the original submissions. Following a second survey, a list of the top 26 interim priorities was generated and discussed at the in-person priority setting workshop. CONCLUSIONS: PSPs enable research priorities to be identified that consider the perspectives and interests of all relevant stakeholders.

RESUMEN

Background: There is a growing number of service users looking to discontinue use of psychiatric medicines. Tapering is the recommended approach for reducing and/or discontinuing the use of psychiatric medicines. This involves gradually reducing the dose over time to minimise the potential for withdrawal symptoms. However, many uncertainties exist regarding the process of reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This study will use a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the Top 10 unanswered questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. Methods : The Priority Setting Partnership will be conducted using the James Lind Alliance methodology. It will involve seven stages: (i) creating an international Steering Group of representatives from key stakeholder groups that will include people with lived experience of taking and/or stopping psychiatric medicines, family members, carers/supporters and healthcare professionals, and identifying potential partners to support key activities (e.g. dissemination); (ii) gathering uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines from key stakeholders using an online survey; (iii) data processing and summarising the survey responses; (iv) checking the summary questions against existing evidence and verifying uncertainties; (v) shortlisting the questions using a second online survey; (vi) determining the Top 10 research questions through an online prioritisation workshop; (vii) disseminating results. Conclusions : This study will use a Priority Setting Partnership to generate a Top 10 list of research questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This list will help to guide future research and deliver responsive and strategic allocation of research resources, with a view to ultimately improving the future health and well-being of individuals who are taking psychiatric medicines.

RESUMEN

AIM: The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the research priorities of Dutch children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) as well as researching how children can be involved. BACKGROUND: Several health research agendas have successfully been developed with adults but rarely with children. Children are still seldom recognized as possessing credible knowledge about their own body and life. This research project with focus group discussions and interviews with children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) was an innovative addition to a nationwide prioritization of research questions of patients with JIA, their carers and health care professionals, based on the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology. RESULTS: Children with JIA appreciated being invited to give their opinion on JIA research prioritization as knowledgeable actors. They have clear views on what topics need most attention. They want more insight on how to medically and socially treat JIA so that they can better fulfil their aspirations at school, later in work and with their relationships. CONCLUSION: We have identified the Top 5 research priorities for children with JIA. Most priorities are unique and differ from the priorities of the adolescents and young adults, parents and healthcare professionals in the main JLA priority setting exercise. Ultimately, two of the children's priorities were included in the final JLA Top 10.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Research priority setting in health care has historically been done by expert health care providers and researchers and has not involved patients, family or the public. Survivors & family members have been particularly absent from this process in the field of resuscitation research and specifically adult out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). As such, we sought to conduct a priority setting exercise in partnership with survivors, lay responders and their families in order to ensure that their priorities were visible. We partnered with the James Lind Alliance (UK) and used their commonly used consensus methodology for Public Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to identify research priorities that reflected the perspectives of all stakeholders. METHODS: We used two rounds of public and health care professional surveys to create the initial priority lists. The initial survey collected open-ended questions while the second round consolidated the list of initial questions into a refined list for prioritization. This was done by reviewing existing evidence and thematic categorization by the multi-disciplinary steering committee. An in-person consensus workshop was conducted to come to consensus on the top ten priorities from all perspectives. The McMaster PPEET tool was used to measure engagement. RESULTS: The initial survey yielded more than 425 responses and 1450 "questions" from survivors and family members (18%), lay responders, health care providers and others. The second survey asked participants to rank a short list of 125 questions. The final top 25 questions were brought to the in-person meeting, and a top ten were selected through the JLA consensus process. The final list of top ten questions included how to improve the rate of lay responder CPR, what interventions used at the scene of an arrest can improve resuscitation and survival, how survival can be improved in rural areas of Canada, what resuscitation medications are most effective, what care patient's family members need, what post-discharge support is needed for survivors, how communication should work for everyone involved with a cardiac arrest, what factors best predict neurologically intact survival, whether biomarkers/genetic tests are effective in predicting OHCA and more research on the short and long-term psycho-social impacts of OHCA on survivors. The PPEET showed overwhelmingly positive results for the patient and family engagement experience during the final workshop. CONCLUSIONS: This inclusive research priority setting provides essential information for those doing resuscitation research internationally. The results provide a guide for priority areas of research and should drive our community to focus on questions that matter to survivors and their families in our work. In particular the Canadian Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium will be incorporating the top ten list into its strategic plan for the future.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a UK-wide survey to identify the top 10 research questions for young people's cancer. We conducted secondary analysis of questions submitted, which were 'out-of-scope' of the original survey aim. We sought to disseminate these questions, to inform practice, policy and the development of potential interventions to support young people with cancer. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 13-24 with a current/previous cancer diagnosis, their families/friends/partners and professionals who work with this population. METHODS: Eight hundred and fifty-five potential research questions were submitted, and 326 were classified as 'out-of-scope'. These questions, along with 49 'free-text' comments, were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The 375 out-of-scope questions and comments were submitted by: 68 young people, 81 family members/partners/friends and 42 professionals. Ten overarching themes were identified: diagnostic experience; communication; coordination of care; information needs and lack of information; service provision; long-term effects and aftercare support; family support; financial impact; end-of life care; and research methods and current research. CONCLUSIONS: The need to tailor services, information and communication is a striking thread evidenced across the 'out-of-scope' questions. Gaps in information highlight implications for practice in revisiting information needs throughout the cancer trajectory. We must advocate for specialist care for young people and promote the research priorities and these findings to funding bodies, charities, young people and health and social care policymakers, in order to generate an evidence base to inform effective interventions across the cancer trajectory and improve outcomes. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: Patients and carers were equal stakeholders throughout.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Food hypersensitivity (FHS), including food allergy, coeliac disease and food intolerance, is a major public health issue. The Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent UK Government department working to protect public health and consumers' wider interests in food, sought to identify research priorities in the area of FHS. METHODS: A priority setting exercise was undertaken, using a methodology adapted from the James Lind Alliance-the first such exercise with respect to food hypersensitivity. A UK-wide public consultation was held to identify unanswered research questions. After excluding diagnostics, desensitization treatment and other questions which were out of scope for FSA or where FSA was already commissioning research, 15 indicative questions were identified and prioritized by a range of stakeholders, representing food businesses, patient groups, health care and academia, local authorities and the FSA. RESULTS: 295 responses were received during the public consultation, which were categorized into 70 sub-questions and used to define 15 key evidence uncertainties ('indicative questions') for prioritization. Using the JLA prioritization framework, this resulted in 10 priority uncertainties in evidence, from which 16 research questions were developed. These could be summarized under the following 5 themes: communication of allergens both within the food supply chain and then to the end consumer (ensuring trust in allergen communication); the impact of socio-economic factors on consumers with FHS; drivers of severe reactions; mechanism(s) underlying loss of tolerance in FHS; and the risks posed by novel allergens/processing. DISCUSSION: In this first research prioritization exercise for food allergy and FHS, key priorities identified to protect the food-allergic public were strategies to help allergic consumers to make confident food choices, prevention of FHS and increasing understanding of socio-economic impacts. Diagnosis and treatment of FHS was not considered in this prioritization.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This paper presents a user involvement process, called needs-led research, conducted as a part of a doctoral degree project aiming to explore research priorities and, ultimately, to develop a final top 10 list of questions relevant to the field of research. There is evidence of a mismatch between what user groups within a research field find relevant to study and what is actually being done. User involvement is a method that can accommodate this, and there is a growing attention and amount of research in this field based on an understanding that people who receive health care services, and their next of kin and clinicians, are uniquely positioned to contribute to research in order to understand their experiences better and improve the services. This paper presents a user involvement process in a small-scale study, referred to as needs-led research, which concerns the 'performance of the trust model in community home-based health care services'. The process was conducted as part of a doctoral degree project. METHOD: The needs-led research process is inspired by the James Lind Alliance (JLA), which focuses on bringing together service users, next of kin and clinicians on equal terms to explore research priorities. The process consisted of five-steps, each of which involved representatives from service users, next of kin and clinicians: 1) narrowing down the theme; 2) steering group meeting; 3) gathering input through a survey; 4) data processing and interim priority setting; and 5) final priority setting. RESULTS: Almost 200 participants contributed during the five steps, 294 inputs were gathered, and 35 participants voted for the top 10 list. The top 10 list is presented. CONCLUSION: This paper provides an example of how user involvement can be employed to devise research questions that are relevant for clinicians, service users, next of kin and service providers concerning the 'performance of the trust model in home-based health care'. It also outlines some strengths and limitations of the process. The needs-led research process shows that user involvement in research is feasible for developing research questions in small-scale studies. We hope that the top 10 list presented will encourage future research to address issues of importance regarding the performance of the trust model in community home-based health care services.

User involvement is a topic that has received increasing attention in research aimed at ensuring relevant and needed knowledge. It can be practised in a variety of ways, and the literature claims that there is no gold standard for how it should be done. This paper presents a user involvement process conducted autumn 2019 to spring 2020, hereby referred to as needs-led research (NLR), inspired by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). The scope of the process is the 'performance of the trust model in community home-based health care services'. The trust model is a new way of organising home-based health care services where small interdisciplinary teams work with the service users and their next of kin on tailoring the services based on the users' answers to the question 'What matters to you?'Through a five-step process, in which representatives of service users, next of kin and clinicians participated in meetings and online surveys, the goal of the NLR process was to explore research priorities and, ultimately, to develop a final top 10 list of questions relevant to the field of research. This paper describes the NLR process and discusses its strengths and limitations. We found the process to be important when identifying relevant research questions concerning a topic on which little research has been conducted, and in which we as researchers have little experience. The final top 10 list is also presented.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: AO Spine REsearch objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [RECODE-DCM] is a multi-stakeholder consensus process aiming to promote research efficiency in DCM. It aims to establish the top 10 research uncertainties, through a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership [PSP]. Through a consensus process, research questions are generated and ranked. The inclusion of people with cervical myelopathy [PwCM] is central to the process. We hypothesized that presenting PwCM experience through word cloud generation would stimulate other key stakeholders to generate research questions better aligned with PwCM needs. This protocol outlines our plans to evaluate this as a nested methodological study within our PSP. METHODS: An online poll asked PwCM to submit and vote on words associated with aspects of DCM. After review, a refined word list was re-polled for voting and word submission. Word clouds were generated and an implementation plan for AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP surveys was subsequently developed. RESULTS: Seventy-nine terms were submitted after the first poll. Eighty-seven refined words were then re-polled (which added a further 39 words). Four word clouds were generated under the categories of diagnosis, management, long-term effects, and other. A 1:1 block randomization protocol to assess word cloud impact on the number and relevance of PSP research questions was generated. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown it is feasible to work with PwCM to generate a tool for the AO Spine RECODE-DCM nested methodological study. Once the survey stage is completed, we will be able to evaluate the impact of the word clouds. Further research will be needed to assess the value of any impact in terms of stimulating a more creative research agenda.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Involving the end-users of scientific research (patients, carers and clinicians) in setting research priorities is important to formulate research questions that truly make a difference and are in tune with the needs of patients. We therefore aimed to generate a national research agenda for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) together with patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals through conducting a nationwide survey among these stakeholders. METHODS: The James Lind Alliance method was used, tailored with additional focus groups held to involve younger patients. First, research questions were gathered through an online and hardcopy survey. The received questions that were in scope were summarised and a literature search was performed to verify that questions were unanswered. Questions were ranked in the interim survey, and the final top 10 was chosen during a prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-eight respondents submitted 604 questions, of which 519 were in scope. Of these 604 questions, 81 were generated in the focus groups with younger children. The questions were summarised into 53 summary questions. An evidence checking process verified that all questions were unanswered. A total of 303 respondents prioritised the questions in the interim survey. Focus groups with children generated a top 5 of their most important questions. Combining this top 5 with the top 10s of patients, carers, and clinicians led to a top 21. Out of these, the top 10 research priorities were chosen during a final workshop. Research into pain and fatigue, personalised treatment strategies and aetiology were ranked high in the Top 10. CONCLUSIONS: Through this study, the top 10 research priorities for JIA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians were identified to inform researchers and research funders of the research topics that matter most to them. The top priority involves the treatment and mechanisms behind persisting pain and fatigue when the disease is in remission.

Asunto(s)