Search

Objective The objective of this study is to identify the top 10 research priorities on reducing and stopping psychiatric medication that reflect the perspectives and unmet needs of three key stakeholder groups (people with lived experience, family members/carers/supporters and healthcare professionals).Methods A priority-setting partnership was conducted using the James Lind Alliance’s seven-step process. This involved (1) creating an international Steering Group of key stakeholder representatives and (2) identifying potential partners; (3) gathering stakeholders’ uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medication using an online survey and summarising the survey responses; (4) checking the summary questions against existing evidence and verifying uncertainties; (5) shortlisting the questions using a second online survey; (6) determining the top 10 research questions through a prioritisation workshop; and (7) disseminating the results.Results A total of 3635 questions were collected in the initial survey from 884 respondents of which 32 questions were verified as uncertainties. These questions were then ranked in a second online survey by 526 respondents and the findings discussed in a final prioritisation workshop by 30 participants to produce the final top 10 list of research questions. These questions cover a range of areas including the most effective ways of safely reducing/stopping psychiatric medication and providing support to individuals undergoing the discontinuation process, as well as the best ways to educate healthcare professionals on this topic.Conclusion The top 10 list of research priorities was produced through extensive engagement with key stakeholders and highlights important uncertainties and gaps in the existing evidence base that need to be addressed by future research.

Abstract 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.

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.

Background: Few areas of health have been as insidiously influenced by misinformation as cancer. Thus, interventions that can help people impacted by cancer reduce the extent to which they are victims of misinformation are necessary. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) initiative has developed Key Concepts that can be used in the development of interventions for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of health treatments. We are developing an online education programme called Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) based on the IHC Key Concepts. We will provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make informed choices. Methods: We will establish a steering group (SG) of 12 key stakeholders, including oncology specialists and academics. In addition, we will establish a patient and public involvement (PPI) panel of 20 people impacted by cancer. After training the members on the Key Concepts and the prioritisation process, we will conduct a two-round prioritisation process. In the first round, 12 SG members and four PPI panel members will prioritise Key Concepts for inclusion. In the second round, the remaining 16 PPI members will undertake the prioritisation based on the prioritised Key Concepts from the first round. Participants in both rounds will use a structured judgement form to rate the importance of the Key Concepts for inclusion in the online IHC-C programme. A consensus meeting will be held, where members will reach a consensus on the Key Concepts to be included and rank the order in which the prioritised Key Concepts will be addressed in the IHC-C programme. Conclusions: At the end of this process, we will identify which Key Concepts should be included and the order in which they should be addressed in the IHC-C programme.

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.

Abstract Background The use of survey instruments to measure women’s experiences of their maternity care is regarded internationally as an indicator of the quality of care received. To ensure the credibility of the data arising from these instruments, the methodological quality of development must be high. This paper reports the protocol for a systematic review of self-report instruments used to measure women’s experiences of their maternity care. Methods Citation databases CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched from 2002 to 2018 using keywords including women, experience, maternity care, questionnaires, surveys, and self-report. Citations will be screened by two reviewers, in two rounds, for inclusion as per predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction forms will be populated with data, extracted from each study, to evaluate the methodological quality of each survey instrument and the criteria for good measurement properties using quality criteria. Data will also be extracted to categorise the items included in each survey instrument. A combination of a structured narrative synthesis and quantitate summaries in tabular format will allow for recommendations to be made on the use, adaptation and development of future survey instruments. Discussion The value of survey instruments that evaluate women’s experiences of their maternity care, as a marker of quality care, has been recognised internationally with many countries employing the use of such instruments to inform policy and practice. The development of these instruments must be methodologically sound and the instrument itself fit for the purpose and context in which it is used. This protocol describes the methods that will be used to complete a systematic review that will serve as a guide for choosing the most appropriate existing instruments to use or adapt so that they are fit for purpose, in addition to informing the development of new instruments. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018105325

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.

Background: Studies within trials (SWATs) present an opportunity to examine design factors that may impact on the successful delivery of trials. One area in need of research is trial recruitment. Recruiting patients to trials is a major challenge facing trialists. Failure to meet recruitment targets can result in delays and underpowered studies. This SWAT evaluates the effectiveness of hand-held digital multimedia presentation of trial information and standard written patient information to potential participants on recruitment and retention to a host trial. Methods: This is the protocol for SWAT 15, a two-group, embedded parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT) (ISRCTN12838042) designed within a host trial - the SATIN trial (ISRCTN88111427), a RCT designed for implementation in the Irish primary care setting. The SWAT eligibility criteria was determined by the host trial. General practices who agree to participate in the host trial will provide women (participants) who are willing to consider participating in the host trial with either a multimedia digital information resource facilitated through a handheld tablet device, plus a written participant information leaflet (Intervention) or a written participant information leaflet (comparator). Outcomes are recruitment and retention to the host SATIN trial and participant’s quality of decision-making. Discussion: Although designed to be implemented in a host trial, the host trial, was suspended and therefore this SWAT was not implemented. The protocol and the lessons learnt whilst developing it offer guidance to researchers who wish to answer similar research questions in the future in a similar context or setting. Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12838042 (11/10/2017)