Search

Simple Summary Surgical sterilisation is a component of free-roaming dog population management programmes worldwide. However, evidence of the population-level impacts of sterilisation are rarely reported in peer-reviewed literature. Using a priority setting partnership process, we identified the most important unanswered questions concerning these impacts from the perspective of those working with free-roaming dogs. We found that there were many uncertainties surrounding the impacts of such programmes, and how they can be achieved. The top 10 priorities were related to changes in dog population dynamics; risks to human health; human perception and behaviour towards dogs; and logistics related to implementation in the field. Addressing these priorities will enable a more comprehensive understanding of if, how, and why canine surgical sterilisation programmes impact on free-roaming dog populations. Abstract Surgical sterilisation is a core activity of free-roaming dog population management (DPM) programmes globally. However, there is limited published evidence on its impact at the population level. To support evidence-based decision making in this field, it is important that research conducted is relevant to those involved in working with free-roaming dogs and implementing such programmes. The aim of this study was to adapt the James Lind Alliance (JLA) user involvement approach to systematically identify the top 10 research priorities regarding the impact of canine sterilisation. International stakeholders with experience working in DPM were asked in an online survey what unanswered questions they had regarding the impact of sterilisation programmes. Thematic analysis of survey responses was used to develop a long list of collated indicative research questions (CIRQs). A literature review was performed to identify questions that were ‘true uncertainties’ (had not been answered by evidence review). These questions were reduced to a shortlist via an online interim prioritisation survey, and a Delphi consensus process determined the top 10 priorities. The top 10 questions related to dog population size and turnover, dog bite incidents, rabies control, implementation in the field and human behaviour change. These priorities were identified and shaped by people with direct experience of canine surgical sterilisation programmes, and as such are an essential resource for directing future funding and research. Addressing these priorities will generate evidence that is directly applicable to policy makers and practitioners who make decisions regarding the management of free-roaming dogs (FRDs) worldwide.

Key Summary Points Aim To provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions amongst GEM professionals throughout Europe. Findings A list of 10 research questions was identified and prioritised. Message The list of research questions may serve as guidance for scientists, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritising future research projects., Purpose Geriatric Emergency Medicine (GEM) focuses on delivering optimal care to (sub)acutely ill older people. This involves a multidisciplinary approach throughout the whole healthcare chain. However, the underpinning evidence base is weak and it is unclear which research questions have the highest priority. The aim of this study was to provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions among GEM professionals throughout Europe. Methods A two-stage modified Delphi approach was used. In stage 1, an online survey was administered to various professionals working in GEM both in the Emergency Department (ED) and other healthcare settings throughout Europe to make an inventory of potential research questions. In the processing phase, research questions were screened, categorised, and validated by an expert panel. Subsequently, in stage 2, remaining research questions were ranked based on relevance using a second online survey administered to the same target population, to identify the top 10 prioritised research questions. Results In response to the first survey, 145 respondents submitted 233 potential research questions. A total of 61 research questions were included in the second stage, which was completed by 176 respondents. The question with the highest priority was: Is implementation of elements of CGA (comprehensive geriatric assessment), such as screening for frailty and geriatric interventions, effective in improving outcomes for older patients in the ED? Conclusion This study presents a top 10 of high-priority research questions for a European Research Agenda for Geriatric Emergency Medicine. The list of research questions may serve as guidance for researchers, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritising future research projects.

Background More than half of deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) result from conditions that could be treated with emergency care - an integral component of universal health coverage (UHC) - through timely access to lifesaving interventions. Methods The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to extend UHC to a further 1 billion people by 2023, yet evidence supporting improved emergency care coverage is lacking. In this article, we explore four phases of a research prioritisation setting (RPS) exercise conducted by researchers and stakeholders from South Africa, Egypt, Nepal, Jamaica, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, South Korea and Phillipines, USA and UK as a key step in gathering evidence required by policy makers and practitioners for the strengthening of emergency care systems in limited-resource settings. Results The RPS proposed seven priority research questions addressing: identification of context-relevant emergency care indicators, barriers to effective emergency care; accuracy and impact of triage tools; potential quality improvement via registries; characteristics of people seeking emergency care; best practices for staff training and retention; and cost effectiveness of critical care – all within LMICs. Conclusions Convened by WHO and facilitated by the University of Sheffield, the Global Emergency Care Research Network project (GEM-CARN) brought together a coalition of 16 countries to identify research priorities for strengthening emergency care in LMICs. Our article further assesses the quality of the RPS exercise and reviews the current evidence supporting the identified priorities.

Background In 2014 Parkinson’s UK conducted a research prioritisation exercise with stakeholders highlighting important clinical research questions. The exercise highlighted the need for effective interventions to be developed and tested to tackle a range of non-motor symptoms including: sleep quality, stress and anxiety, mild cognitive impairment, dementia and urinary problems. The present work set out to build on this exercise by prioritising types of non-pharmacological interventions to be tested to treat the identified non-motor symptoms. Methods A Patient and Public Involvement exercise was used to reach consensus on intervention priorities for the treatment of non-motor symptoms. A Delphi structure was used to support the feedback collected. A first-round prioritisation survey was conducted followed by a panel discussion. Nineteen panellists completed the first-round survey (9 people with Parkinson’s and 10 professionals working in Parkinson’s) and 16 participated in the panel discussion (8 people with Parkinson’s and 8 professionals working in Parkinson’s). A second-round prioritization survey was conducted after the panel discussion with 13 people with Parkinson’s. Results Physical activity, third wave cognitive therapies and cognitive training were rated as priority interventions for the treatment of a range of non-motor symptoms. There was broad agreement on intervention priorities between health care professionals and people with Parkinson’s. A consensus was reached that research should focus on therapies which could be used to treat several different non-motor symptoms. In the context of increasing digitisation, the need for human interaction as an intervention component was highlighted. Conclusion Bringing together Parkinson’s professionals and people with Parkinson’s resulted in a final treatment priority list which should be both feasible to carry out in routine clinical practice and acceptable to both professionals and people with Parkinson’s. The workshop further specified research priorities in Parkinson’s disease based on the current evidence base, stakeholder preferences, and feasibility. Research should focus on developing and testing non-pharmacological treatments which could be effective across a range of symptoms but specifically focusing on tailored physical activity interventions, cognitive therapies and cognitive training.

Background: The Rare Disease Research Partnership (RAinDRoP) was established in 2018 to bring together a wide variety of diverse voices in the rare disease community in Ireland and form a research partnership. This approach enabled clinicians, patients, carers and researchers to work together to identify top research priorities for rare diseases, which focused on a life-course perspective rather than a disease-specific need. Methods: A participatory multiple phase approach was used to identify research priorities for rare diseases. The research process involved three main phases: Phase I, Public Consultation Survey on Research in Rare Diseases in Ireland (PCSRRDI); Phase II, Research Prioritisation Workshop (RPW); Phase III, Follow-up Public Consultation and Prioritisation Survey (FWPCPS). Results: In total, 240 individuals completed the phase I PCSRRDI, which comprised of a cross-section of health care professionals, researchers and people living with rare diseases. One thousand and fifteen statements were collected, reflecting issues and shared challenges in rare diseases. A shortlisting step by step was used to identify any statements that had received a total score of above 50% into 10-12 researchable questions or statements per the theme for the phase II workshop. Phase II was focused on three main themes: (1) Route to Diagnosis, (2) Living with Rare Disease, (3) Integrated and Palliative Care. In total, 62 individuals attended the overall workshop; 42 participated in the prioritisation sessions. A cross-section of health care professionals, researchers and people living with rare diseases were engaged at each workshop. Seventy-five individuals completed the final phase III public ranking by priority responses, and they ranked the top 15 research priorities defined by the multi-stakeholders at the phase II consensus meeting. Conclusions: This study identified priorities for rare diseases research aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of people living with rare diseases.

Background The KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Health Act of 2009 mandates the Provincial Health Research and Ethics Committee to develop health research priorities for the province. During 2013, the KZN Department of Health embarked on a research prioritisation process for the province. Priority research questions were generated by an inclusive process, in which a variety of stakeholders in health research in the province were engaged. The aim of this study was to determine whether research conducted at public health facilities in KZN between 01 January 2014 and 31 March 2017 met the research priorities of the province developed through the provincial research prioritisation process of 2013. Methods This was a mixed methods study. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to categorise priority research questions generated in the priority-setting process and the titles of research projects conducted after that process into themes. Quantitative analysis was used to determine the correlation between themes of the priority questions, and those of the research projects conducted after the prioritisation exercise. Statistical Package for Social Science version 25 was used to analyse the data. Results In 72% of thematic areas, there were disproportionately more priority questions than there were research projects conducted. There is thus a large disjuncture between the priorities developed through the provincial research prioritisation process of 2013 and the research projects conducted after that process in terms of major research areas. Conclusions Ensuring that research conducted responds to priority questions raised is important because it ensures that research responds to locally important issues and to the concerns of local actors. Local health managers, communities and researchers should work together to ensure that the research conducted in their areas respond to the research priorities of those areas. Health Research Committees and local ethics committees can play important roles in facilitating the responsiveness to research priorities.

ObjectiveTo identify and prioritise research questions concerning the elective surgical management of children with conditions affecting the lower limb by engaging patients, carers and healthcare professionals.DesignA modified nominal group technique.SettingUK.Participants388 individuals (29 patients, 155 parents/carers, 204 healthcare professionals) were recruited through hospital clinics, patient charities and professional organisations and participated in the initial prioritisation survey; 234 individuals took part in the interim prioritisation survey. 33 individuals (3 patients, 9 parents/carers, 11 healthcare professionals, 7 individuals representing the project’s steering group and 3 James Lind Alliance (JLA) facilitators) attended the final face-to-face workshop to rank the top 10 research priorities.InterventionsSurveys were distributed using various media resources such as newsletters, internet messaging boards and the ‘Paediatric Lower Limb Surgery Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) website. Printed copies of the questionnaire were also made available to families in outpatient clinics.Outcome measuresSurvey results, top 10 and top 26 priority rankingsResultsThe process took 18 months to complete (July 2017–January 2019); 388 people generated 1023 questions; a total of 801 research questions were classified as true uncertainties. Following the JLA methodology, 75 uncertainties were developed from the initial 801 questions. Twenty six of those were selected through a second survey and were taken to the final face-to-face workshop where the top 10 research priorities were selected. The top10 priorities included questions on cerebral palsy, common hip conditions (ie, Perthes’ disease and developmental dysplasia of the hip) as well as rehabilitation techniques and methods to improve shared decision-making between clinicians and patients/families.ConclusionsThis is the first JLA PSP in children’s orthopaedic surgery, a particularly under-researched and underfunded area. We have identified important research topics which will guide researchers and funders and direct their efforts in future research.

Background Maintained study-based registers (SBRs) have, at their core, study records linked to, potentially, multiple other records such as references, data sets, standard texts and full-text reports. Such registers can minimise and refine searching, de-duplicating, screening and acquisition of full texts. SBRs can facilitate new review titles/updates and, within seconds, inform the team about the potential workload of each task. Methods We discuss the advantages/disadvantages of SBRs and report a case of how such a register was used to develop a successful grant application and deliver results—reducing considerable redundancy of effort. Results SBRs saved time in question-setting and scoping and made rapid production of nine Cochrane systematic reviews possible. Conclusion Whilst helping prioritise and conduct systematic reviews, SBRs improve quality. Those funding information specialists for literature reviewing could reasonably stipulate the resulting SBR to be delivered for dissemination and use beyond the life of the project.

The behaviour of people with diabetes (e.g. taking medication) and the behaviour of doctors and other healthcare professionals (e.g. checking patients’ blood sugar) are important. Our research group wanted to select one patient behaviour and one healthcare professional behaviour as topics to research in Ireland. Patients and healthcare professionals are not usually asked to help decide on research topics. In this study, we wanted to bring together patients, healthcare professionals and policy makers to help us decide on the most important target behaviours for research in diabetes in Ireland. We worked with 24 participants, including people with diabetes, diabetes healthcare professionals and policy makers. First, participants suggested behaviours they thought were important to target for research in diabetes. Participants then attended a meeting and ranked which of the behaviours were the most important and discussed the results of the rankings as a group. We identified the most highly ranked patient and healthcare professional behaviours. The top ranked behaviour for people with Type 1 diabetes was to ‘take insulin as required’ and for people with Type 2 diabetes was to ‘attend and engage with structured education programmes’. ‘Engage in collaborative goal setting with patients’ was the top ranked behaviour for healthcare professionals. Our study shows it is possible for researchers to work with people with diabetes, healthcare professionals and policy makers to decide on research topics. The top ranked behaviours will now be researched by our group in Ireland. Background Working with patients, healthcare providers, and policy makers to prioritise research topics may enhance the relevance of research and increase the likelihood of translating research findings into practice. The aim of the present study was to work with key stakeholders to identify, and achieve consensus on, the most important target behaviours for research in diabetes in Ireland. Methods Twenty-four participants, including people with diabetes, diabetes healthcare professionals and policy makers, took part in a nominal group technique consensus process. Through an online survey, participants generated lists of important target behaviours in three areas: managing Type 1 diabetes, managing Type 2 diabetes and preventing Type 2 diabetes. Participants then attended a research prioritisation meeting and ranked target behaviours in two rounds, with group discussion between ranking rounds. For each of the three key areas, the six top ranked behaviours relevant to people with diabetes and healthcare professionals were identified. Results In most cases, the most highly ranked behaviour was the same for Ranking 1 and Ranking 2 and consensus increased in relation to endorsement of top ranked behaviours. However, some behaviours did change position between rankings. The top behaviour relevant to people with Type 1 diabetes was ‘taking insulin as required’ and for people with Type 2 diabetes was ‘attending and engaging with structured education programmes’. ‘Engage in collaborative goal setting with patients’ was the top ranked behaviour relevant to healthcare professionals for managing both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. For preventing Type 2 diabetes, 'engage in healthy behaviours as a family' was the highest ranked population behaviour and ‘attend and engage with behaviour change training’ was the highest ranked professional behaviour. Conclusions It is possible to work with a diverse group of stakeholders to inform the diabetes research agenda. The priorities identified were co-produced by key stakeholders, including patients, healthcare professionals and policy makers, and will inform the development of a programme of behavioural research in diabetes in Ireland. The study also provides a worked example of a research prioritisation process using the nominal group technique, and identified limitations, which may be useful for other researchers.

ObjectivesHealthcare budgets are limited, and therefore, research funds should be wisely allocated to ensure high-quality, useful and cost-effective research. We aimed to critically review the criteria considered by major Australian organisations in prioritising and selecting health research projects for funding.MethodsWe reviewed all grant schemes listed on the Australian Competitive Grants Register that were health-related, active in 2017 and with publicly available selection criteria on the funders’ websites. Data extracted included scheme name, funding organisation, selection criteria and the relative weight assigned to each criterion. Selection criteria were grouped into five representative domains: relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility (including team quality) and cost-effectiveness (ie, value for money).ResultsThirty-six schemes were included from 158 identified. One-half of the schemes were under the National Health and Medical Research Council. The most commonly used criteria were research team quality and capability (94%), research plan clarity (94%), scientific quality (92%) and research impact (92%). Criteria considered less commonly were existing knowledge (22%), fostering collaboration (22%), research environment (19%), value for money (14%), disease burden (8%) and ethical/moral considerations (3%). In terms of representative domains, relevance was considered in 72% of the schemes, appropriateness in 92%, significance in 94%, feasibility in 100% and cost-effectiveness in 17%. The relative weights for the selection criteria varied across schemes with 5%–30% for relevance, 20%–60% for each appropriateness and significance, 20%–75% for feasibility and 15%–33% for cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsIn selecting research projects for funding, Australian research organisations focus largely on research appropriateness, significance and feasibility; however, value for money is most often overlooked. Research funding decisions should include an assessment of value for money in order to maximise return on research investment.

The principles of evidence-based practice and involvement of consumers in healthcare are well established. However, consumers are rarely involved in decisions about what evidence is actually required and this may result in a mismatch between research undertaken and issues of importance to those who use the health services. This may be particularly evident in maternity care where disease focused research funding priorities may not address aspects of care which are important to the majority of women. Working with service users to generate possible future research questions may facilitate more women centred research. Aim 1.to work with groups of mothers to develop questions for research that reflect issues of importance to them; 2.to make these questions widely available to facilitate the development of women centred maternity care research. Method the project used a three stage participatory approach in a diverse sample of localities across Scotland. Twelve pre-existing, community-based groups of maternity service users participated with between 8 and 20 mothers in each. Each group met twice. At the first meeting group discussion identified topics and questions. A rapid literature review of each topic was conducted and used to develop a document summarising evidence to facilitate discussion at the second meeting. The group then prioritised topic areas and questions using a modified Nominal Group Technique. Findings analysis identified key topics and questions which were raised and prioritised by a number of the groups; a ‘top ten' list of priority topics was readily identified, these included aspects of postnatal care, antenatal care, communication and information giving and risk. Approximately 200 individual questions were asked by women, for example: What is the impact of a bad birth experience on postnatal physical and psychological health? What is the best way of providing antenatal classes/preparation classes? What is the effect of women feeling not listened to in labour? How can fathers be given effective preparation for coping with labour and birth and supporting their partner? Discussion this project demonstrates that women are well able to articulate researchable questions when given the opportunity and support to do so. Although a wide range of topics and questions were identified there were remarkable areas of consensus and clear areas of priority for women, these should be used to inform development of women centred research.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients and the public in research prioritisation is important. Cochrane Airways works with authors to produce systematic reviews of evidence related to chronic airways disease. Cochrane Airways has undertaken activities to identify research priorities, including workshops with stakeholders and consultation with experts. We present the findings of an online survey, designed to align our work with the priorities of people affected by asthma. METHODS: We promoted a survey comprising open-ended questions via social media to people affected by asthma. We compiled the free-text responses and conducted an exploratory thematic analysis to identify important barriers and facilitators to asthma control. We triangulated findings with other research prioritisation activities to produce new review questions. RESULTS: We received 57 survey responses. Eight main themes emerged, most encompassing both facilitators and barriers: attitudes and knowledge; financial costs; environmental factors and triggers; healthcare systems; lifestyle factors; medication; self-care; and support. Barriers were more frequently mentioned than facilitators and many related to healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: These findings offer valuable insights into the challenges faced by individuals affected by asthma in the UK, and possibly further afield. We developed a list of priority reviews based on what was said by people in this survey and at a workshop. This demonstrates the real impact that people affected by asthma have on the research agenda of Cochrane Airways. Over the next 2-3 years we will produce reviews that address some of these questions hopefully leading to health benefits.

Plain English summary There is some evidence that there is a mismatch between what patients and health professionals want to see researched and the research that is actually done. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) research Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) were created to address this mismatch. Between 2007 and 2014, JLA partnerships of patients, carers and health professionals agreed on important treatment research questions (priorities) in a range of health conditions, such as Type 1 diabetes, eczema and stroke. We were interested in how much these JLA PSP priorities were similar to treatments undergoing evaluation and research over the same time span. We identified the treatments described in all the JLA PSP research priority lists and compared these to the treatments described in a group of research studies (randomly selected) registered publically. The priorities identified by JLA PSPs emphasised the importance of non-drug treatment research, compared to the research actually being done over the same time period, which mostly involved evaluations of drugs. These findings suggest that the research community should make greater efforts to address issues of importance to users of research, such as patients and healthcare professionals. Abstract Background Comparisons of treatment research priorities identified by patients and clinicians with research actually being done by researchers are very rare. One of the best known of these comparisons (Tallon et al. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer 355:2037–40, 2000) revealed important mismatches in priorities in the assessment of treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee: researchers preferenced drug trials, patients and clinicians prioritised non-drug treatments. These findings were an important stimulus in creating the James Lind Alliance (JLA). The JLA supports research Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) of patients, carers and clinicians, who are actively involved in all aspects of the process, to develop shared treatment research priorities. We have compared the types of treatments (interventions) prioritised for evaluation by JLA PSPs with those being studied in samples of clinical trials being done over the same period. Objective We used treatment research priorities generated by JLA PSPs to assess whether, on average, treatments prioritised by patients and clinicians differ importantly from those being studied by researchers. Methods We identified treatments mentioned in prioritised research questions generated by the first 14 JLA PSPs. We compared these treatments with those assessed in random samples of commercial and non-commercial clinical trials recruiting in the UK over the same period, which we identified using WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Results We found marked differences between the proportions of different types of treatments proposed by patients, carers and clinicians and those currently being evaluated by researchers. In JLA PSPs, drugs accounted for only 18 % (23/126) of the treatments mentioned in priorities; in registered non-commercial trials, drugs accounted for 37 % (397/1069) of the treatments mentioned; and in registered commercial trials, drugs accounted for 86 % (689/798) of the treatments mentioned. Discussion Our findings confirm the mismatch first described by Tallon et al. 15 years ago. On average, drug trials are being preferenced by researchers, and non-drug treatments are preferred by patients, carers and clinicians. This general finding should be reflected in more specific assessments of the extent to which research is addressing priorities identified by the patient and clinician end users of research. It also suggests that the research culture is slow to change in regard to how important and relevant treatment research questions are identified and prioritised. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.