RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A recent Lancet commission called for more research on palliative care in low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries such as Colombia. A research priority setting approach has been recommended by The Global Forum for Health Research to address the huge gap in research output between LMIC and high-income countries, with influential health service bodies recommending the active involvement of non-research expert stakeholders in establishing research priorities to address service user needs. METHOD: Priority setting partnership (PSP) following the four stages of the James Lind Alliance methodology; establishing the partnership, identifying evidence uncertainties, refining questions and uncertainties, and prioritization. Data from MS forms were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 33 stakeholders attended an online PSP workshop and completed the Mentimeter exercise in Microsoft Teams. A total of 48 attended the subsequent in person prioritisation exercise in urban Bogota (n = 22) and rural Popayan (n = 25). The stakeholders were a diverse group of health professionals (physicians, medical students, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists, nutritionist, occupational and speech therapists), financial and administrative staff and patients with life-limiting illness and caregivers. Top research priorities included patient and caregiver needs, service provider education and training, and better integration of palliative care with cancer and non-cancer services. The key challenges included a lack of interest in palliative care research, along with funding, time and resource constraints. Key solutions included collaboration across disciplines and settings, highlighting benefits of palliative research to help secure adequate resources, and multicentre, mixed method research, with patient involvement from the research development stage. CONCLUSION: The findings of this PSP should be disseminated among palliative care associations worldwide to inform international multicentre studies, and among governmental and nongovernmental organisations that promote research in Colombia. A focus on patient and family caregiver palliative care needs in Colombia should be prioritised.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

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: Women's health has historically lacked investment in research and development. Technologies that enhance women's health ('FemTech') could contribute to improving this. However, there has been little work to understand which priority unmet needs should be a focus for women's health technology development. The voices of clinicians and those who experience and utilise these technologies (including those used at home or encountered in clinical settings) are needed to ensure that device development aligns with need, without risking exacerbating or creating health inequities. METHOD: We undertook a priority setting partnership project exploring unmet needs in women's health and well-being where physical technologies or innovations could help. This comprised gathering feedback from: patients and clinicians using both qualitative surveys and discussions; collating and publishing these responses and asking for feedback; evidence checking unmet needs identified, and holding a partnership priority setting event to agree a top 10 and top 20 list of priorities. RESULTS: We generated a 'longlist' of 54 suggestions for areas where better kit, devices or equipment could support women's health. For three, we found evidence of existing technologies which mitigated against that need. We took the remaining 51 suggestions to a partnership priority setting meeting which brought together clinicians and service users. Through discussion as this group, we generated a list of the top 10 areas identified as priorities for technological development and improvement. These included better devices to manage examination, diagnosis and treatment of pelvic pain (including endometriosis), prolapse care, continence (treatment and prevention, related to pregnancy and beyond), menstruation, vaginal pain and vaginismus, point of care tests for common infections, and nipple care when breastfeeding. CONCLUSION: The top priorities suggest far-reaching areas of unmet need across women's life course and across multiple domains of health and well-being, and opportunities where innovation in the devices that people use themselves or encounter in health settings could potentially enhance health and healthcare experiences.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Public and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research. METHODS: Participant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis. RESULTS: The findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes: Theme 1 We all bring unique qualities to the table. Subtheme 1.1-Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making; Subtheme 1.2-Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2 We need support and space at the table. Subtheme 2.1-Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement; Subtheme 2.2-Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3 We all benefit from working together. Subtheme 3.1-Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building; Subtheme 3.2-Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context.

Public and patient involvement is well known in research where patients share their lived experience for a health-related study. However, the role of public and patients in methodology research (research that aims to improve the quality of research) is not clear.A priority-setting partnership brings patients, carers, clinicians and other stakeholders together to jointly identify priorities for research. We looked at public involvement in a priority-setting partnership in how we plan, do, and share the results of rapid reviews­the Priority III project. We wanted to do this to better support public involvement in future research.We explored the processes of Priority III and asked the members of the Priority III steering group for their views and experiences of public involvement in the project. We found three themes:1: We all bring unique qualities to the table.2: We need support and space at the table.3: We all benefit from working together.Communication and trust were found to be important across all themes. Even though public partners felt outside of their comfort zones when starting the project, they significantly helped the project, brought unique views, ideas and practical solutions. Support and safe spaces were needed to help overcome challenges due to the complex methodological concepts. Researchers and public partners learned from one another, and developed relationships with a feeling of being "partners in research". Our findings offer insight into what helped public involvement in this research context. We give examples of practical actions and suggestions for future research.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the word. Which aspects of research into CRC should be accorded the highest priority remains unclear, because relevant stakeholders, such as patients, nurses, and physicians, played hardly any part in the development of research projects. The goal in forming the CRC Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) was to bring all relevant stakeholders together to identify and prioritize unresolved research questions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CRC. METHODS: The CRC PSP worked in cooperation with the British James Lind Alliance. An initial nationwide survey was conducted, and evidence uncertainties were collected, categorized, summarized, and compared with available evidence from the literature. The as-yet unresolved questions were (provisionally) ranked in a second national wide survey, and at a concluding consensus workshop all stakeholders came together to finalize the rankings in a nominal group process and compile a top 10 list. RESULTS: In the first survey (34% patients, 51% healthcare professionals, 15% unknown), 1102 submissions were made. After exclusion of duplicates and previously resolved questions, 66 topics were then ranked in the second survey (56% patients, 39% healthcare professionals, 5% unknown). This interim ranking process revealed distinct differences between relatives and healthcare professionals. The final top 10 list compiled at the consensus workshop covers a wide area of research topics. CONCLUSION: All relevant stakeholders in the CRC PSP worked together to identify and prioritize the top 10 evidence uncertainties. The results give researchers and funding bodies the opportunity to address the most patient-relevant research projects. It is the first detailed description of a PSP in Germany, and the first PSP on CRC care worldwide.

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

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: A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions. RESULTS: Patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results. CONCLUSION: The results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Primary mitochondrial disorders encompass a wide range of clinical presentations and a spectrum of severity. They currently lack effective disease-modifying therapies and have a high mortality and morbidity rate. It is therefore essential to know that competitively funded research designed by academics meets the core needs of people with mitochondrial disorders and their clinicians. Priority setting partnerships are an established collaborative methodology that brings patients, carers and families, charity representatives and clinicians together to try to establish the most pressing and unanswered research priorities for a particular disease. We developed a web-based questionnaire, requesting all patients affected by primary mitochondrial disease, their carers and clinicians to pose their research questions. This yielded 709 questions from 147 participants. These were grouped into overarching themes including basic biology, causation, health services, clinical management, social impacts, prognosis, prevention, symptoms, treatment and psychological impact. Following the removal of "answered questions", the process resulted in a list of 42 discrete, answerable questions. This was further refined by web-based ranking by the community to 24 questions. These were debated at a face-to-face workshop attended by a diverse range of patients, carers, charity representatives and clinicians to create a definitive "Top 10 of unanswered research questions for primary mitochondrial disorders". These Top 10 questions related to understanding biological processes, including triggers of disease onset, mechanisms underlying progression and reasons for differential symptoms between individuals with identical genetic mutations; new treatments; biomarker discovery; psychological support and optimal management of stroke-like episodes and fatigue.

Asunto(s)

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders' perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Osteogenesis imperfecta, fibrous dysplasia/McCune-Albright syndrome and X-linked hypophosphatemia are three rare musculoskeletal diseases characterised by bone deformities, frequent fractures and pain. Little high-quality research exists on appropriate treatment and long-term management of these conditions in adults. This is further worsened by limited research funding in rare diseases and a general mismatch between the existing research priorities and those of the patients. This partnership adopted the James Lind Alliance approach to identify the top 10 research priorities for rare musculoskeletal diseases in adults through joint patient, carer and healthcare professional collaboration. RESULTS: The initial survey for question collection recruited 198 respondents, submitting a total of 988 questions. 77% of the respondents were patients with a rare musculoskeletal disease. Following out-of-scope question exclusion, repeating query grouping and scientific literature check for answers, 39 questions on treatment and long-term management remained. In the second public survey, 220 respondents, of whom 85% were patients with a rare musculoskeletal disease, their carers, relatives or friends, prioritised these uncertainties, which allowed selection of the top 25. In the last stage, patients, carers and healthcare professionals gathered for a priority setting workshop to reach a consensus on the final top 10 research priorities. These focus on the uncertainties surrounding appropriate treatment and holistic long-term disease management, highlighting several aspects indirect to abnormal bone metabolism, such as extra-skeletal symptoms, psychological care of both patients and their families and disease course through ageing. CONCLUSIONS: This James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership is the first to investigate rare bone diseases. The priorities identified here were developed jointly by patients, carers and healthcare professionals. We encourage researchers, funding bodies and other stakeholders to use these priorities in guiding future research for those affected by rare musculoskeletal disorders.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Eating Disorder Priority Setting Partnership was established to identify and prioritize the top 10 research priorities for females, 15 years or older, with anorexia nervosa, by incorporating equal input from those with lived experience, families, and healthcare professionals. METHOD: This project, which closely followed the James Lind Alliance guidelines, solicited research priorities from the Canadian eating disorder community by means of a five-step process including use of a survey, response collation, literature checking, interim ranking survey, and in-person prioritization workshop. RESULTS: The initial survey elicited 897 priorities from 147 individuals, with almost equal representation from all three stakeholder groups. From this, 603 responses aligned with the project objectives and were collapsed into 71 broader indicative questions. Based on available systematic reviews, 18 indicative questions were removed as they were considered answered by existing literature while 8 indicative questions were added from the recommendations of the reviews. In total, 61 indicative questions were ranked in an interim ranking survey, where 21 questions were prioritized as important by at least 20% of respondents. As a final step, 28 individuals from across Canada attended the prioritization workshop to coestablish the top 10 research priorities. DISCUSSION: Top priorities were related to treatment gaps and the need for more surveillance data. This systematic methodology allowed for a transparent and collaborative approach to identifying current priorities from both the service user and provider perspective. Wide dissemination is anticipated to promote work that is of high relevance to patients, families, and clinicians.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The international liver glycogen storage disease (GSD) priority setting partnership (IGSDPSP) was established to identify the top research priorities in this area. The multiphase methodology followed the principles of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) guidebook. An international scoping survey in seven languages was distributed to patients, carers, and healthcare professionals to gather uncertainties, which were consolidated into summary questions. The existing literature was reviewed to ensure that the summary questions had not yet been answered. A second survey asked responders to prioritize these summary questions. A final shortlist of 22 questions was discussed during an international multi-stakeholder workshop, and a consensus was reached on the top 11 priorities using an adapted nominal group technique.In the first survey, a total of 1388 questions were identified from 763 responders from 58 countries. These original uncertainties were refined into 72 summary questions for a second prioritization survey. In total 562 responders from 58 countries answered the second survey. From the second survey, the top 10 for patients, carers and healthcare professionals was identified and this shortlist of 22 questions was taken to the final workshop. During the final workshop, participants identified the worldwide top 11 research priorities for liver GSD. In addition, a top three research priorities per liver GSD subtype was identified.This unique priority setting partnership is the first international, multilingual priority setting partnership focusing on ultra-rare diseases. This process provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies to foster interdisciplinary and transnational research projects with a clear benefit for patients.

Asunto(s)