Search

AbstractPurposeMaterials and methodsResultsConclusions\nIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPrioritisation exercises seek out what matters to key stakeholders to inform the planning of research. Social media platforms are potentially useful data sources. The aim was to examine the content of tweets, short messages containing text and pictures, to ascertain the priorities of Twitter users regarding stroke recovery.Content analysis of Twitter was conducted. An electronic search used the identifiers: #strokesurvivor and #strokerecovery. Tweets spanning four weeks from January 2021 were analysed.There were 1361 tweets extracted and 486 analysed following exclusion of duplicates and unrelated material. Six themes were uncovered (n = number of tweets): maintaining motivation and positivity (153); sharing of resources (146); raising awareness of stroke (74); symptomatic aspects of recovery (39); experience of rehabilitation (63); and concerns about Covid-19 (17).Despite the brevity of tweets, a rich picture arose. A key limitation was lack of biographical data about Twitter users. Recommendations about topics requiring attention from stroke researchers, clinicians and policy makers are: management of psychological problems; public perception of stroke; rehabilitation considerations including treatment burden, person-centred care and equality of care; symptom management including fatigue and aphasia. Findings can be used to supplement and validate other priority-setting exercises.Priority setting exercises are integral to improving patient care.Twitter is a useful source of data alongside more traditional in-person methods.Key areas of stroke care requiring attention include: psychological support; information sharing; treatment burden; equity of access to rehabilitation services; management of fatigue and aphasia.Priority setting exercises are integral to improving patient care.Twitter is a useful source of data alongside more traditional in-person methods.Key areas of stroke care requiring attention include: psychological support; information sharing; treatment burden; equity of access to rehabilitation services; management of fatigue and aphasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on Open Science practices in Health Psychology is lacking. This meta-research study aimed to identify research question priorities and obtain consensus on the Top 5 prioritised research questions for Open Science in Health Psychology. An international Delphi consensus study was conducted. Twenty-three experts in Open Science and Health Psychology within the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) suggested research question priorities to create a 'long-list' of items (Phase 1). Forty-three EHPS members rated the importance of these items, ranked their top five and suggested their own additional items (Phase 2). Twenty-four EHPS members received feedback on Phase 2 responses and then re-rated and re-ranked their top five research questions (Phase 3). The top five ranked research question priorities were: 1. 'To what extent are Open Science behaviours currently practised in Health Psychology?', 2. 'How can we maximise the usefulness of Open Data and Open Code resources?', 3. 'How can Open Data be increased within Health Psychology?', 4. 'What interventions are effective for increasing the adoption of Open Science in Health Psychology?' and 5. 'How can we increase free Open Access publishing in Health Psychology?'. Funding and resources should prioritise the research questions identified here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital need for research to inform policy decision-making and save lives. The Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established in March 2021 and funded for two years, to make evidence about the impact of the pandemic and ongoing research priorities for Wales available and actionable to policy decision-makers, service leads and the public. Objectives We describe the approaches we developed and our experiences, challenges and future vision. Program implementation The centre operated with a core team, including a public partnership group, and six experienced research groups as collaborating partners. Our rapid evidence delivery process had five stages: 1. Stakeholder engagement (continued throughout all stages); 2. Research question prioritisation; 3. Bespoke rapid evidence review methodology in a phased approach; 4. Rapid primary research; and 5. Knowledge Mobilisation to ensure the evidence was available for decision-makers. Main achievements Between March 2021–23 we engaged with 44 stakeholder groups, completed 35 Rapid Evidence Reviews, six Rapid Evidence Maps and 10 Rapid Evidence Summaries. We completed four primary research studies, with three published in peer reviewed journals, and seven ongoing. Our evidence informed policy decision-making and was cited in 19 Welsh Government papers. These included pandemic infection control measures, the Action Plan to tackle gender inequalities, and Education Renew and Reform policy. We conducted 24 Welsh Government evidence briefings and three public facing symposia. Policy implications Strong engagement with stakeholder groups, a phased rapid evidence review approach, and primary research to address key gaps in current knowledge enabled high-quality efficient, evidence outputs to be delivered to help inform Welsh policy decision-making during the pandemic. We learn from these processes to continue to deliver evidence from March 2023 as the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, with a broader remit of health and social care, to help inform policy and practice decisions during the recovery phase and beyond.

Objective: An innovative approach by two Queensland health services was taken to establish a shared maternity services' research agenda by partnering with consumers and clinicians. The objective was to set the top five research priorities to ensure that the future direction of maternity research was relevant to end-user and organisational needs. Methods: A modified James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology was applied between August 2022 and February 2023 across two south-east Queensland Health Services which included five participating maternity units and involved partnership with consumers, healthcare professionals and clinician researchers. The reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) was followed. Results: There were 192 respondents to the initial harvesting survey, generating 461 research suggestions. These were aggregated into 122 unique questions and further summarised into a list of 44 research questions. The 157 eligible interim prioritisation survey respondents short-listed 27 questions ready for ranking at a final consensus workshop. The top five question themes were: (1) maternity care experience, engagement and outcomes of priority populations; (2) increasing spontaneous vaginal birth; (3) experiences and perceptions of woman/person-centred care; (4) best practice care during the 'fourth' trimester; and (5) antibiotic use during labour and birth. Conclusion: Applying an adapted JLA framework can successfully shape and establish a research agenda within Australian health services, through partnership with consumers and practicing clinicians. This is a transparent process that strengthens the legitimacy and credibility of research agendas, and it can form a replicable framework for other settings. What is known about the topic? Establishment of research agendas often neglects the participation of research end-users, consumers and practising clinicians, consequently limiting relevance and translation. What does this paper add? Prioritised specific maternity research questions were jointly generated by consumers and front-line clinicians to highlight areas of focus for research funding and support. What are the implications for practitioners? By partnering with consumers and practising clinicians health service research priorities can be established to optimise patient outcomes and ensure future research is both translational and relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While research is linked with informed decision-making and improved healthcare delivery and patient outcomes, the process of generating and translating research evidence in practice and capturing its impact can often be challenging. Based on document and database reviews and interviews in a regional Australian health system, Brown et al discuss the challenges of assessing the impact of research investments over a ten-year period. This commentary explores three inter-related lessons from this article for developing and sustaining a research culture and supporting translation in a health system: (i) achieving a shared definition and expectation of research; (ii) the importance of stakeholder engagement particularly for research prioritisation; and (iii) enabling research across a system. In doing so, it highlights the role and value of engaging knowledge generators and end-users from clinical, management and community domains not only in research development but most importantly in research prioritisation.

Background Prioritisation of research activities for infectious disease pathogens is usually undertaken through the identification of important research and knowledge gaps. Research prioritisation is an essential element of both effective responses to disease outbreaks and adequate preparedness. There is however currently no published mapping of activities on and evidence from research prioritisation for high consequence pathogens. The objectives of this review are to map all published research prioritisation exercises on high-consequence pathogens; provide an overview of methodologies employed for prioritising research for these pathogens; describe monitoring and evaluation processes for research areas prioritised; and identify any standards and guidance for effectively undertaking research prioritisation activities for high consequence pathogens. Methods The Joanna Briggs Institute guidance of scoping review conduct will be used. The search will be undertaken using the key terms of “research prioritisation”, “response”, “control”, and related terms, and a list of high-consequence pathogens derived from WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), Europe CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021). We will search WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Backward citations review of the included full text documents will also be conducted. Google Scholar and Overton will be searched for grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved documents using Rayyan and extract data in a data extraction template in Microsoft Excel 2021. Screening results will be presented using the PRISMA-ScR template with narrative synthesis undertaken for the extracted data. Conclusion This review will map existing research priorities for high consequence pathogens. Further, it will provide an understanding of methodologies used for prioritisation, processes for monitoring and evaluation of progress made against research agendas, and evidence on standards that could be recommended for effective prioritisation of research for high consequence pathogens.

The Targeted Translation Research Accelerator program was created to address cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Australia. To maximise the impact of the considerable investment in this program, a structured prioritisation project was undertaken to determine the highest priority health and medical unmet needs in cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The project was led by Monash University's Behaviour Works Australia in collaboration with Australian National University, Research Australia, and MTPConnect. We conducted an online survey with 318 experts and community representatives to generate a 'long list' of unmet needs for (1) cardiovascular disease; (2) diabetes; and (3) interactions in the pathogenesis of Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. We then convened roundtables of clinical, research, and community leaders to discuss survey results. They prioritised unmet needs against six predefined criteria then discussed results. We present the final priority areas for funding. We demonstrate how a feasible, reproducible, and collaborative prioritisation methodology can be used when designing research funding programs. Such approaches can ensure that funding is directed towards projects that are valuable to the community and reflective of expert opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Dementia research prioritisation allows for the systematic allocation of investment in dementia research by governments, funding agencies and the private sector. There is currently a lack of information available in Ireland regarding priority areas for dementia research. To address this gap, a dementia research prioritisation exercise was undertaken, consisting of an online survey of professionals in the dementia field and workshops for people living with dementia and family carers. Methods (1) An anonymous online survey of professionals, based on an existing WHO global survey: the global survey was adapted to an Irish context and participants were asked to score 65 thematic research avenues under five criteria; (2) A mixed-methods exercise for people living with dementia and family carers: this involved two facilitated workshops where participants voted on the research themes they felt were important to them and should be addressed through research. Results Eight of the top ten research priorities in the survey of professionals (n=108) were focused on the delivery and quality of care and services for people with dementia and carers. Other research avenues ranked in the top ten focused on themes of timely and accurate diagnosis of dementia in primary health-care practices and diversifying therapeutic approaches in clinical trials. Participants in the workshops (n=13) ranked ‘better drugs and treatment for people with dementia’, ‘dementia prevention/ risk reduction’ and ‘care for people with dementia and carers’ as their top priority areas. Conclusions Findings from this prioritisation exercise will inform and motivate policymakers, funders and researchers to support and conduct dementia-focused research and ensure that the limited resources made available are spent on research that has the most impact for those who will benefit from and use the results of research.

Abstract Background New Zealand recently introduced law permitting terminally ill people to request and receive assisted dying (AD) in specified circumstances. Given the nature and complexity of this new health service, research is vital to determine how AD is operating in practice. Objective To identify research priorities regarding the implementation and delivery of AD in New Zealand. Methods Using an adapted research prioritisation methodology, the researchers identified 15 potential AD research topics. A mixed-methods survey of health professionals was undertaken where respondents were asked to rate the 15 topics according to the relative importance for research to be conducted on each issue. Respondents could also suggest additional research areas, and were invited to participate in a follow-up interview. Results One hundred and nineteen respondents completed the survey. 31% had some experience with AD. The highest rated research topic was the ‘effectiveness of safeguards in the Act to protect people’; the lowest rated topic was research into the ‘experiences of non-provider (e.g., administrative, cleaning) staff where assisted dying is being provided’. Respondents suggested 49 other research topics. Twenty-six interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis of interview data and open-ended survey questions was undertaken. Six research themes were identified: general factors related to the wider health system; the experiences of health care providers at the bedside; medico-legal issues; the impact of AD; experiences on the day of dying; and the overall effectiveness of the AD system. Key issues for stakeholders included safety of the AD service; ensuring access to AD; achieving equity for ‘structurally disadvantaged’ groups; and ensuring the well-being of patients, families/whānau, providers and non-providers. Conclusions Based on early experiences of the implementation of the AD service, health professionals provide important insights into what research should be prioritised post-legalisation of AD. These findings can be used to shape the research agenda so that research may inform law, policy and best practice.

Background: Bayesian methods have potential for efficient design of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by incorporating existing evidence. Furthermore, value of information (VOI) methods estimate the value of reducing decision uncertainty, aiding transparent research prioritization. These methods require a prior distribution describing current uncertainty in key parameters, such as relative treatment effect (RTE). However, at the time of designing and commissioning research, there may be no data to base the prior on. The aim of this article is to present methods to construct priors for RTEs based on a collection of previous RCTs. Methods: We developed 2 Bayesian hierarchical models that captured variability in RTE between studies within disease area accounting for study characteristics. We illustrate the methods using a data set of 743 published RCTs across 9 disease areas to obtain predictive distributions for RTEs for a range of disease areas. We illustrate how the priors from such an analysis can be used in a VOI analysis for an RCT in bladder cancer and compare the results with those using an uninformative prior. Results: For most disease areas, the predicted RTE favored new interventions over comparators. The predicted effects and uncertainty differed across the 9 disease areas. VOI analysis showed that the expected value of research is much lower with our empirically derived prior compared with an uninformative prior. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a novel approach to generating informative priors that can be used to aid research prioritization and trial design. The methods can also be used to combine RCT evidence with expert opinion. Further work is needed to create a rich database of RCT evidence that can be used to form off-the-shelf priors. Highlights: Bayesian methods have potential to aid the efficient design of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by incorporating existing evidence. Value-of-information (VOI) methods can be used to aid research prioritization by calculating the value of current decision uncertainty. These methods require a distribution describing current uncertainty in key parameters, that is, "prior distributions." This article demonstrates a methodology to estimate prior distributions for relative treatment effects (odds and hazard ratios) estimated from a collection of previous RCTs. These results may be combined with expert elicitation to facilitate 1) value-of-information methods to prioritize research or 2) Bayesian methods for research design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significantly lower reported mortalities on the African continent as compared to other regions. Yet, many countries on the continent are still contending with the devastating economic, social and indirect health impacts. African researchers and policy makers have identified research priority areas which take cognisance of the unique research needs of African countries. A baseline assessment of the alignment of funded research in Africa to these priorities and World Health Organization’s COVID-19 research priorities was undertaken in July, 2020. We present a two-year update to this analysis of funded COVID-19 research in Africa. Methods: Data captured in the UK Collaborative on Development Research and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness COVID-19 Research Project Tracker as of 15th July, 2022 was analysed. An additional analysis of institutions receiving funding for COVID-19 research is presented. We also analysed the change in funding for COVID-19 research in Africa since July, 2020. Results: The limited COVID-19 research identified in Africa early in the pandemic has persisted over the subsequent two-year period assessed. When number of projects are considered, governmental funders based in Europe and United States supported the most research. Only nine research funders based in Africa were identified. A number of partnerships between African institutions and institutions based on other continents were identified, however, most research projects were undertaken in research institutions based in Africa only. Our findings highlight the relevance of the WHO research priorities for the pandemic response in Africa. Many research questions raised by African researchers remain unaddressed, among which are questions related to clinical management of COVID-19 infections in Africa. Conclusions: Two years after the identification of Africa’s COVID-19 research priorities, the findings suggest a missed opportunity in new research funding to answer pertinent questions for the pandemic response in Africa.

Background: New Zealand recently introduced law permitting terminally ill people to request and receive assisted dying (AD) in specified circumstances. Given the nature and complexity of this new health service, research is vital to determine how AD is operating in practice. Objective: To identify research priorities regarding the implementation and delivery of AD in New Zealand. Methods: Using an adapted research prioritisation methodology, the researchers identified 15 potential AD research topics. A mixed-methods survey of health professionals was undertaken where respondents were asked to rate the 15 topics according to the relative importance for research to be conducted on each issue. Respondents could also suggest additional research areas, and were invited to participate in a follow-up interview. Results: One hundred and nineteen respondents completed the survey. 31% had some experience with AD. The highest rated research topic was the 'effectiveness of safeguards in the Act to protect people'; the lowest rated topic was research into the 'experiences of non-provider (e.g., administrative, cleaning) staff where assisted dying is being provided'. Respondents suggested 49 other research topics. Twenty-six interviews were conducted. Thematic analysis of interview data and open-ended survey questions was undertaken. Six research themes were identified: general factors related to the wider health system; the experiences of health care providers at the bedside; medico-legal issues; the impact of AD; experiences on the day of dying; and the overall effectiveness of the AD system. Key issues for stakeholders included safety of the AD service; ensuring access to AD; achieving equity for 'structurally disadvantaged' groups; and ensuring the well-being of patients, families/whānau, providers and non-providers. Conclusions: Based on early experiences of the implementation of the AD service, health professionals provide important insights into what research should be prioritised post-legalisation of AD. These findings can be used to shape the research agenda so that research may inform law, policy and best practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The chronic complications of ageing with HIV are not well studied in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where general healthcare resources are limited. We aimed to collaborate with individuals living with HIV aged ≥ 50 years, and community elders (aged ≥ 60 years) living with non-communicable diseases in the Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania in a health research priority-setting exercise. Methods: We conducted structured workshops based on broad questions to aid discussion and group-based patient priority setting, alongside discussion of the feasibility of future community research engagement. Participant priorities were tallied and ranked to arrive at core priorities from consensus discussion. Results: Thirty older people living with HIV and 30 community elders attended separate priority setting workshops. Both groups reported motivation to participate in, conduct, and oversee future studies. In this resource-limited setting, basic needs such as healthcare access were prioritised much higher than specific HIV-complications or chronic disease. Stigma and social isolation were highly prioritised in those living with HIV. Conclusions: Community engagement and involvement in HIV and ageing research appears feasible in Tanzania. Ageing and non-communicable disease research should consider the wider context, and lack of basic needs in low-income settings. A greater impact may be achieved with community involvement. Plain English summary: The population in sub-Saharan Africa is ageing. The majority of people living with HIV infection also live in Africa, and they are ageing now that treatment is widely available. Current research on the chronic complications of ageing with and without HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is very limited, meaning that little is known on how to improve symptoms. In this pilot study, researchers from Tanzania and the UK worked with older people living with HIV, and community elders in Tanzania in a health research priority-setting exercise. Thirty older people living with HIV and thirty community elders attended workshops where they listed issues important to them, and then voted for each item as a group. Priorities were ranked in order of importance by adding up the number of votes. We also asked how interested and motivated older people were to work jointly with academic researchers and what might help and support them to do this. Both groups reported that they felt very motivated to participate in, conduct and oversee future research studies. A key finding was that basic needs, such as being able to see a doctor regularly and buying medications, were prioritised much higher than specific HIV-complications or chronic disease. Stigma and social isolation were important issues for older people with HIV. Our pilot findings suggest that meeting basic needs should be a key part of future work on living and ageing with chronic disease in Tanzania. The importance of working with patients and communities is also highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter respectfully referred to as Indigenous Australians) represent about 3% of the total Australian population. Major health disparities exist between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. To address this, it is vital to understand key health priorities and knowledge gaps in the current landscape of clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia. Methods Australian-based clinical trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry or ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2018 were analysed. Australian clinical trials with and without a focus on Indigenous health were compared in terms of total numbers, participant size, conditions studied, design, intervention type and funding source. Results Of the 9206 clinical trials included, 139 (1.5%) focused on Indigenous health, with no proportional increase in Indigenous trials over the decade (p = 0.30). Top conditions studied in Indigenous-focused trials were mental health (n = 35, 28%), cardiovascular disease (n = 20, 20%) and infection (n = 16, 16%). Compared to General Australian trials, Indigenous-focused trials more frequently studied ear conditions (OR 20.26, 95% CI 10.32–37.02, p

Objective: Research prioritisation helps to target research resources to the most pressing health and healthcare needs of a population. This systematic review aimed to report research priorities in maternal and perinatal health and to assess the methods that were used to identify them.Methods: A systematic review was undertaken. Projects that aimed to identify research priorities that were considered to be amenable to clinical trials research were eligible for inclusion. The search, limited to the last decade and publications in English, included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, relevant Cochrane priority lists, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group homepage, James Lind Alliance homepage, Joanna Brigg's register, PROSPERO register, reference lists of all included articles, grey literature, and the websites of relevant professional bodies, until 13 October 2020. The methods used for prioritisation were appraised using the Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE).Findings: From the 62 included projects, 757 research priorities of relevance to maternal and perinatal health were identified. The most common priorities related to healthcare systems and services, pregnancy care and complications, and newborn care and complications. The least common priorities related to preconception and postpartum health, maternal mental health, contraception and pregnancy termination, and fetal medicine and surveillance. The most commonly used prioritisation methods were Delphi (20, 32%), Child Health Nutrition Research Initiative (17, 27%) and the James Lind Alliance (10, 16%). The fourteen projects (23%) that reported on at least 80% of the items included in the REPRISE guideline all used an established research prioritisation method.Conclusions: There are a large number of diverse research priorities in maternal and perinatal health that are amenable to future clinical trials research. These have been identified by a variety of research prioritisation methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current nursing shortage is a critical issue facing healthcare systems. Workforce research priorities foremergency nurses are limited.This study aimed to identify, collate, and prioritise areas of workforce research for emergency nursing in Australia., Methods: This priority-setting study was conducted with ED nurses from September 2022 to August 2023 and comprised: i) an initial survey, ii) face-to-face group discussions, and iii) a prioritisation survey., Results: A total of 318 ED nurses responded to the initial survey. Staffing (n = 245), workload (n = 112), access block (n = 63) and burnout (n = 54) were nominated as workforce concerns. Responses were grouped into three overarching categories: person, department, and organisation. These categories informed the face-to-face group discussions. A total of 30 ED nurses participated in one of three face-to-face group discussions. Sub-themes, including resilience, workload, and well-being emerged. From the prioritisation survey completed by 163 ED nurses, the highest-ranked workforce research priorities pertained to turnover and retention., Conclusions: The research priorities identified reflect important and contemporary workforce issues for emergency nurses. Efforts to progress research in these priority workforce areas should be encouraged and supported., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JC is an International Advisory Board Member for International Emergency Nursing. JM is an Editorial Advisor for International Emergency Nursing., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prioritisation of research activities for infectious disease pathogens is usually undertaken through the identification of important research and knowledge gaps. Research prioritisation is an essential element of both effective responses to disease outbreaks and adequate preparedness. There is however currently no published mapping of activities on and evidence from research prioritisation for high consequence pathogens. The objectives of this review are to map all published research prioritisation exercises on high-consequence pathogens; provide an overview of methodologies employed for prioritising research for these pathogens; describe monitoring and evaluation processes for research areas prioritised; and identify any standards and guidance for effectively undertaking research prioritisation activities for high consequence pathogens. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute guidance of scoping review conduct will be used. The search will be undertaken using the key terms of “research prioritisation”, “response”, “control”, and related terms, and a list of high-consequence pathogens derived from WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), Europe CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021). We will search WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Backward citations review of the included full text documents will also be conducted. Google Scholar and Overton will be searched for grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved documents using Rayyan and extract data in a data extraction template in Microsoft Excel 2021. Screening results will be presented using the PRISMA-ScR template with narrative synthesis undertaken for the extracted data. Conclusion: This review will map existing research priorities for high consequence pathogens. Further, it will provide an understanding of methodologies used for prioritisation, processes for monitoring and evaluation of progress made against research agendas, and evidence on standards that could be recommended for effective prioritisation of research for high consequence pathogens.

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter respectfully referred to as Indigenous Australians) represent about 3% of the total Australian population. Major health disparities exist between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. To address this, it is vital to understand key health priorities and knowledge gaps in the current landscape of clinical trial activity focusing on Indigenous health in Australia.Methods: Australian-based clinical trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry or ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2018 were analysed. Australian clinical trials with and without a focus on Indigenous health were compared in terms of total numbers, participant size, conditions studied, design, intervention type and funding source.Results: Of the 9206 clinical trials included, 139 (1.5%) focused on Indigenous health, with no proportional increase in Indigenous trials over the decade (p = 0.30). Top conditions studied in Indigenous-focused trials were mental health (n = 35, 28%), cardiovascular disease (n = 20, 20%) and infection (n = 16, 16%). Compared to General Australian trials, Indigenous-focused trials more frequently studied ear conditions (OR 20.26, 95% CI 10.32-37.02, p < 0.001), infection (OR 3.11, 95% CI 1.88-4.85, p < 0.001) and reproductive health (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.50-4.15, p < 0.001), and less of musculoskeletal conditions (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00-0.37, p < 0.001), anaesthesiology (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01-0.69, p = 0.021) and surgery (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.73, p = 0.027). For intervention types, Indigenous trials focused more on prevention (n = 48, 36%) and screening (n = 18, 13%). They were far less involved in treatment (n = 72, 52%) as an intervention than General Australian trials (n = 6785, 75%), and were less likely to be blinded (n = 48, 35% vs n = 4273, 47%) or have industry funding (n = 9, 7% vs 1587, 17%).Conclusions: Trials with an Indigenous focus differed from General Australian trials in the conditions studied, design and funding source. The presented findings may inform research prioritisation and alleviate the substantial burden of disease for Indigenous population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background People living with and beyond cancer are more likely to have comorbid conditions and poorer mental and physical health, but there is a dearth of in-depth research exploring the psychosocial needs of people experiencing cancer and comorbid chronic conditions. A patient partnership approach to research prioritisation and planning can ensure outcomes meaningful to those affected and can inform policy and practice accordingly, but can be challenging. Methods We aimed to inform priorities for qualitative inquiry into the experiences and support needs of people living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness using a partnership approach. A three-step process including a patient workshop to develop a consultation document, online consultation with patients, and academic expert consultation was carried out. The research prioritisation process was also appraised and reflected upon. Results Six people attended the workshop, ten responded online and eight academic experts commented on the consultation document. Five key priorities were identified for exploration in subsequent qualitative studies, including the diagnostic journey, the burden of symptoms, managing medications, addressing the needs of informal carers, and service provision. Limitations of patient involvement and reflections on procedural ethics, and the challenge of making measurable differences to patient outcomes were discussed. Conclusions Findings from this research prioritisation exercise will inform planned qualitative work to explore patients’ experiences of living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness. Including patient partners in the research prioritisation process adds focus and relevance, and feeds into future work and recommendations to improve health and social care for this group of patients. Reflections on the consultation process contribute to a broadening of understanding the field of patient involvement.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background Public engagement events are an important early strategy in developing a meaningful research agenda, which is more impactful and beneficial to the population. Evidence indicates the potential of such activities to promote mental health literacy. However, this has not yet been explored in Indonesia. Aim This paper describes a mental health public engagement festival carried out in Indonesia in November 2018 and uses evaluation data to consider the acceptability and use of such activities in Indonesia in the future. Method Evaluation data was collected from 324 of the 737 people who attended a six-day mental health festival comprising 18 events including public lectures, film screenings, arts activities, exercise classes and panel discussions. Attendees were asked to evaluate the festival in terms of its quality, benefits and areas for improvement. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the evaluation data. 87 service users, carers, academics and professionals also engaged in a research prioritisation exercise to collaboratively determine mental health research priorities for Indonesia. Results Participants evaluated the festival extremely positively with a significant majority (92%) rating the quality of the festival as good or excellent. Attendees reported an increase in their understanding of mental health issues and identified intended behaviour change including an increased propensity for future engagement with mental health research. Key strengths of the festival included the central role of patients, carers and the local community in the design and delivery of the festival which promoted emotional engagement and development of shared understanding and the use of international experts which in attendees’ opinion further enhanced the credibility of festival activities. Conclusion This manuscript indicates that a co-produced mental health public engagement festival is a potentially acceptable way to increase awareness of mental health in Indonesian populations. Future festivals should be larger in scope and target men, older people and the general public to maximise benefit and incorporate rigorous evaluation of effectiveness.

Abstract 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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) can help with steering and shaping research prioritisation and execution. However, some groups of people may not be encouraged to take part and their voices may be seldom listened to in the production of research. This is important to consider because they may have poorer healthcare experiences. We tried using art as a vehicle for including individuals not necessarily invited to be part of research priority setting. Methods: We contacted existing groups and organisations to reach people not routinely supported to be part of PPI. We targeted individuals: a) with dementia, b) with a mental and physical health condition, c) of South Asian heritage. We ran a workshop with each group at which individuals shared their experiences of healthcare. A young amateur artist also attended, who produced a piece of artwork afterwards that reflected the research priorities raised. We held a Twitter chat to discuss these pieces of art and the processes involved in their generation. Results: From each workshop, we produced a list of research priorities. These included: a) improving coordination of care for people with dementia, b) information needs and anxiety/guilt around accessing care for people with physical and mental health conditions, c) supporting discussion of women's health issues in South Asian communities. These priorities were reflected in three pieces of art, which can be viewed online. Feedback from those at workshops suggested that the artwork helped them to feel that their voice had been heard and triggered their interest in how research is developed. Those involved in the Twitter chat commented that art was one means through which researchers could connect with a range of groups in a PPI context when preparing and producing a study. Conclusions: We found the medium of art to be an effective way of including a range of people in research prioritisation setting. This approach could be useful for future PPI, building on what we have learnt from the project described in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People living with and beyond cancer are more likely to have comorbid conditions and poorer mental and physical health, but there is a dearth of in-depth research exploring the psychosocial needs of people experiencing cancer and comorbid chronic conditions. A patient partnership approach to research prioritisation and planning can ensure outcomes meaningful to those affected and can inform policy and practice accordingly, but can be challenging. Methods: We aimed to inform priorities for qualitative inquiry into the experiences and support needs of people living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness using a partnership approach. A three-step process including a patient workshop to develop a consultation document, online consultation with patients, and academic expert consultation was carried out. The research prioritisation process was also appraised and reflected upon. Results: Six people attended the workshop, ten responded online and eight academic experts commented on the consultation document. Five key priorities were identified for exploration in subsequent qualitative studies, including the diagnostic journey, the burden of symptoms, managing medications, addressing the needs of informal carers, and service provision. Limitations of patient involvement and reflections on procedural ethics, and the challenge of making measurable differences to patient outcomes were discussed. Conclusions: Findings from this research prioritisation exercise will inform planned qualitative work to explore patients' experiences of living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness. Including patient partners in the research prioritisation process adds focus and relevance, and feeds into future work and recommendations to improve health and social care for this group of patients. Reflections on the consultation process contribute to a broadening of understanding the field of patient involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There has been growing interest in the contribution of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to international health research. One strength that NGOs may bring to research involves the potential value of service delivery experience for indicating relevant research questions, namely through their involvement in service delivery, NGO staff may be aware of frontline knowledge gaps, allowing these staff to identify questions that lead to research with immediate relevance. However, there is little empirical evidence on research agendas within NGOs to assess whether their service delivery experience does lead to relevant research or conditions that affect this. This article examines the identification and selection of research questions within NGOs to explore the role of their service delivery experience in generating relevant research agendas. Methods The article reports comparative case study research on four NGOs in Malawi, including two international and two Malawian organisations. Each NGO conducts research and undertakes service delivery and advocacy. Data collection included interviews, focus groups, observation and document review. Analysis involved thematic coding and use of diagrams. Results The case NGOs’ experiences suggest that using service delivery to identify research questions does not always match NGOs’ aims or capacities, and does not guarantee relevance. First, NGOs do not want to rely only on service delivery when developing research agendas; they consider other criteria and additional sources of ideas when selecting questions they see as relevant. Second, service delivery staff are not always well-placed to identify research topics; indeed, involvement in hectic, target-driven service delivery can hinder input to research agendas. Third, NGOs’ ability to pursue questions inspired by service delivery depends on control over their research agendas; relationships with external actors and financial autonomy affect NGOs’ capacity to undertake the research they see as relevant. Finally, the perceived relevance of research findings varies between audiences and depends on more than the research question. Conclusions The findings suggest limits to the value and feasibility of a research agenda based on service delivery experience. Based on the analysis, the conclusion outlines strategies to support an effective role for NGOs’ service delivery experience in development of research agendas.

Abstract Background Cochrane primarily aims to systematically review trials of effectiveness that are important to inform clinical decisions. Editorial groups support authors to achieve high-quality reviews and prioritise review proposals in their clinical domain that are submitted or elicited. Prioritising proposals requires two approaches, identifying (1) clinical practises for which the evidence of effectiveness is uncertain and (2) interventions in which there are trials of effectiveness (especially randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) not systematically reviewed. This study addresses this second approach for the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group (CARIG) in order to identify RCTs of acute respiratory infections that have not been systematically reviewed. Methods We exported, on the 9th of September 2014, and then compared the group’s trials register of RCTs against a list of current Cochrane ARI (systematic) Reviews to identify gaps in topics (the same intervention and health condition) where completed trials have not been systematically reviewed. We assigned a principle intervention and health condition to each of 157 Cochrane reviews (CRs) and 5393 RCTs. Results A majority of topics had been systematically reviewed; however, a substantial number (2174 or 41%) of RCTs were not included in any review. The topic that had been systematically reviewed the most was antibiotic vs placebo for pneumonia with 11 CRs and 205 RCTs. The topic that was the subject of most RCTs was vaccination for influenza with 525 RCTs and 6 CRs. Also, 6 CRs had no RCTs (‘empty reviews’). Conclusions We identified many RCT topics that have not been systematically reviewed. They need to be addressed in a separate process to establish their priority to clinicians.

Background: Prioritisation of research activities for infectious disease pathogens is usually undertaken through the identification of important research and knowledge gaps. Research prioritisation is an essential element of both effective responses to disease outbreaks and adequate preparedness. There is however currently no published mapping of activities on and evidence from research prioritisation for high consequence pathogens. The objectives of this review are to map all published research prioritisation exercises on high-consequence pathogens; provide an overview of methodologies employed for prioritising research for these pathogens; describe monitoring and evaluation processes for research areas prioritised; and identify any standards and guidance for effectively undertaking research prioritisation activities for high consequence pathogens., Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute guidance of scoping review conduct will be used. The search will be undertaken using the key terms of "research prioritisation", "response", "control", and related terms, and a list of high-consequence pathogens derived from WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), Europe CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021). We will search WHO Global Index Medicus ; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus . Backward citations review of the included full text documents will also be conducted. Google Scholar and Overton will be searched for grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved documents using Rayyan and extract data in a data extraction template in Microsoft Excel 2021. Screening results will be presented using the PRISMA-ScR template with narrative synthesis undertaken for the extracted data., Conclusion: This review will map existing research priorities for high consequence pathogens. Further, it will provide an understanding of methodologies used for prioritisation, processes for monitoring and evaluation of progress made against research agendas, and evidence on standards that could be recommended for effective prioritisation of research for high consequence pathogens., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Antonio E et al.)

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.

Conservation decisions are challenging, not only because they often involve difficult conflicts among outcomes that people value, but because our understanding of the natural world and our effects on it is fraught with uncertainty. Value of Information (VoI) methods provide an approach for understanding and managing uncertainty from the standpoint of the decision maker. These methods are commonly used in other fields (e.g. economics, public health) and are increasingly used in biodiversity conservation. This decision‐analytical approach can identify the best management alternative to select where the effectiveness of interventions is uncertain, and can help to decide when to act and when to delay action until after further research. We review the use of VoI in the environmental domain, reflect on the need for greater uptake of VoI, particularly for strategic conservation planning, and suggest promising areas for new research. We also suggest common reporting standards as a means of increasing the leverage of this powerful tool. The environmental science, ecology and biodiversity categories of the Web of Knowledge were searched using the terms 'Value of Information,' 'Expected Value of Perfect Information,' and the abbreviation 'EVPI.' Google Scholar was searched with the same terms, and additionally the terms decision and biology, biodiversity conservation, fish, or ecology. We identified 1225 papers from these searches. Included studies were limited to those that showed an application of VoI in biodiversity conservation rather than simply describing the method. All examples of use of VOI were summarised regarding the application of VoI, the management objectives, the uncertainties, the models used, how the objectives were measured, and the type of VoI. While the use of VoI appears to be on the increase in biodiversity conservation, the reporting of results is highly variable, which can make it difficult to understand the decision context and which uncertainties were considered. Moreover, it was unclear if, and how, the papers informed management and policy interventions, which is why we suggest a range of reporting standards that would aid the use of VoI. The use of VoI in conservation settings is at an early stage. There are opportunities for broader applications, not only for species‐focussed management problems, but also for setting local or global research priorities for biodiversity conservation, making funding decisions, or designing or improving protected area networks and management. The long‐term benefits of applying VoI methods to biodiversity conservation include a more structured and decision‐focused allocation of resources to research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dementia research prioritisation allows for the systematic allocation of investment in dementia research by governments, funding agencies and the private sector. There is currently a lack of information available in Ireland regarding priority areas for dementia research. To address this gap, a dementia research prioritisation exercise was undertaken, consisting of an online survey of professionals in the dementia field and workshops for people living with dementia and family carers., Methods: (1) An anonymous online survey of professionals, based on an existing WHO global survey: the global survey was adapted to an Irish context and participants were asked to score 65 thematic research avenues under five criteria; (2) A mixed-methods exercise for people living with dementia and family carers: this involved two facilitated workshops where participants voted on the research themes they felt were important to them and should be addressed through research., Results: Eight of the top ten research priorities in the survey of professionals ( n =108) were focused on the delivery and quality of care and services for people with dementia and carers. Other research avenues ranked in the top ten focused on themes of timely and accurate diagnosis of dementia in primary health-care practices and diversifying therapeutic approaches in clinical trials. Participants in the workshops ( n =13) ranked 'better drugs and treatment for people with dementia', 'dementia prevention/ risk reduction' and 'care for people with dementia and carers' as their top priority areas., Conclusions: Findings from this prioritisation exercise will inform and motivate policymakers, funders and researchers to support and conduct dementia-focused research and ensure that the limited resources made available are spent on research that has the most impact for those who will benefit from and use the results of research., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2023 Rogan C et al.)

In step with the worldwide trend for highereducational institutes to establish areas of research emphasis,the accumulation of resources in key areas has become commonpractice in veterinary faculties. Although there are perceived logicalbenefits to research prioritisation, there have been very little criticalretrospective analyses of research prioritisation in any discipline,let alone in the relatively niche field of veterinary medicine.This study aimed to bring attention to this gap in knowledge.Evidence for the use and breadth of research area prioritisationin veterinary schools in Western nations was obtained throughpublicly available content on the Internet. Preliminary evaluation ofthe effectiveness of prioritisation strategies in veterinary schools toincrease research performance was performed using bibliometriccriteria. Although limited to publicly available information, findingsfrom this preliminary study suggest a positive relationship betweenan identifiable research prioritisation strategy and researchperformance of veterinary schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic researchers are increasingly asked to engage with the wider world, both in terms of creating impact from their work, and in telling the world what goes on in university research departments. An aspect of this engagement involves working with patients, carers or members of the public as partners in research. This means working with them to identify important research questions and designing studies to address those questions. This commentary was jointly written by two researchers and people with relevant caring experience for this special issue. It brings to the forefront the concerns of carers who are also involved in research as partners. The aim is to highlight their perspectives to inform future research, policy, and practice.

Background: There has been growing interest in the contribution of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to international health research. One strength that NGOs may bring to research involves the potential value of service delivery experience for indicating relevant research questions, namely through their involvement in service delivery, NGO staff may be aware of frontline knowledge gaps, allowing these staff to identify questions that lead to research with immediate relevance. However, there is little empirical evidence on research agendas within NGOs to assess whether their service delivery experience does lead to relevant research or conditions that affect this. This article examines the identification and selection of research questions within NGOs to explore the role of their service delivery experience in generating relevant research agendas.Methods: The article reports comparative case study research on four NGOs in Malawi, including two international and two Malawian organisations. Each NGO conducts research and undertakes service delivery and advocacy. Data collection included interviews, focus groups, observation and document review. Analysis involved thematic coding and use of diagrams.Results: The case NGOs' experiences suggest that using service delivery to identify research questions does not always match NGOs' aims or capacities, and does not guarantee relevance. First, NGOs do not want to rely only on service delivery when developing research agendas; they consider other criteria and additional sources of ideas when selecting questions they see as relevant. Second, service delivery staff are not always well-placed to identify research topics; indeed, involvement in hectic, target-driven service delivery can hinder input to research agendas. Third, NGOs' ability to pursue questions inspired by service delivery depends on control over their research agendas; relationships with external actors and financial autonomy affect NGOs' capacity to undertake the research they see as relevant. Finally, the perceived relevance of research findings varies between audiences and depends on more than the research question.Conclusions: The findings suggest limits to the value and feasibility of a research agenda based on service delivery experience. Based on the analysis, the conclusion outlines strategies to support an effective role for NGOs' service delivery experience in development of research agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cochrane primarily aims to systematically review trials of effectiveness that are important to inform clinical decisions. Editorial groups support authors to achieve high-quality reviews and prioritise review proposals in their clinical domain that are submitted or elicited. Prioritising proposals requires two approaches, identifying (1) clinical practises for which the evidence of effectiveness is uncertain and (2) interventions in which there are trials of effectiveness (especially randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) not systematically reviewed. This study addresses this second approach for the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group (CARIG) in order to identify RCTs of acute respiratory infections that have not been systematically reviewed. Methods: We exported, on the 9th of September 2014, and then compared the group's trials register of RCTs against a list of current Cochrane ARI (systematic) Reviews to identify gaps in topics (the same intervention and health condition) where completed trials have not been systematically reviewed. We assigned a principle intervention and health condition to each of 157 Cochrane reviews (CRs) and 5393 RCTs. Results: A majority of topics had been systematically reviewed; however, a substantial number (2174 or 41%) of RCTs were not included in any review. The topic that had been systematically reviewed the most was antibiotic vs placebo for pneumonia with 11 CRs and 205 RCTs. The topic that was the subject of most RCTs was vaccination for influenza with 525 RCTs and 6 CRs. Also, 6 CRs had no RCTs ('empty reviews'). Conclusions: We identified many RCT topics that have not been systematically reviewed. They need to be addressed in a separate process to establish their priority to clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significantly lower reported mortalities on the African continent as compared to other regions. Yet, many countries on the continent are still contending with the devastating economic, social and indirect health impacts. African researchers and policy makers have identified research priority areas which take cognisance of the unique research needs of African countries. A baseline assessment of the alignment of funded research in Africa to these priorities and World Health Organization's COVID-19 research priorities was undertaken in July, 2020. We present a two-year update to this analysis of funded COVID-19 research in Africa., Methods: Data captured in the UK Collaborative on Development Research and Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness COVID-19 Research Project Tracker as of 15th July, 2022 was analysed. An additional analysis of institutions receiving funding for COVID-19 research is presented. We also analysed the change in funding for COVID-19 research in Africa since July, 2020., Results: The limited COVID-19 research identified in Africa early in the pandemic has persisted over the subsequent two-year period assessed. When number of projects are considered, governmental funders based in Europe and United States supported the most research. Only nine research funders based in Africa were identified. A number of partnerships between African institutions and institutions based on other continents were identified, however, most research projects were undertaken in research institutions based in Africa only. Our findings highlight the relevance of the WHO research priorities for the pandemic response in Africa. Many research questions raised by African researchers remain unaddressed, among which are questions related to clinical management of COVID-19 infections in Africa., Conclusions: Two years after the identification of Africa's COVID-19 research priorities, the findings suggest a missed opportunity in new research funding to answer pertinent questions for the pandemic response in Africa., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2023 Antonio E et al.)

Background: Complex wounds are those that heal by secondary intention and include lower-limb ulcers, pressure ulcers and some surgical wounds. The care of people with complex wounds is costly, with care mainly being delivered by community nurses. There is a lack of current, high-quality data regarding the numbers and types of people affected, care received and outcomes achieved. Objectives: To (1) assess how high-quality data about complex wounds can be captured effectively for use in both service planning and research while ensuring integration with current clinical data collection systems and minimal impact on staff time; (2) investigate whether or not a clinical register of people with complex wounds could give valid estimates of treatment effects, thus reducing dependence on large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs); (3) identify the most important research questions and outcomes for people with complex wounds from the perspectives of patients, carers and health-care professionals; (4) evaluate the potential contributions to decision-making of individual patient data meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis; and (5) complete and update systematic reviews in topic areas of high priority. Methods: To meet objectives 1 and 2 we conducted a prevalence survey and developed and piloted a longitudinal disease register. A consultative, deliberative method and in-depth interviews were undertaken to address objective 3. To address objectives 4 and 5 we conducted systematic reviews including mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Results: From the prevalence survey we estimated the point prevalence of all complex wounds to be 1.47 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.56 per 1000 people). Pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers were the most common type of complex wound. A total of 195 people with a complex wound were recruited to a complex wounds register pilot. We established the feasibility of correctly identifying, extracting and transferring routine NHS data into the register; however, participant recruitment, data collection and tracking individual wounds in people with multiple wounds were challenging. Most patients and health professionals regarded healing of the wound as the primary treatment goal. Patients were greatly troubled by the social consequences of having a complex wound. Complex wounds are frequently a consequence of, and are themselves, a long-term condition but treatment is usually focused on healing the wound. Consultative, deliberative research agenda setting on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment with patients, carers and clinicians yielded 960 treatment uncertainties and a top 12 list of research priorities. Of 167 RCTs of complex wound treatments in a systematic review of study quality, 41% did not specify a primary outcome and the overall quality of the conduct and reporting of the research was poor. Mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis in areas of high priority identified that matrix hydrocolloid dressings had the highest probability (70%) of being the most effective dressing for diabetic foot ulcers, whereas a hyaluronan fleece dressing had the highest probability (35%) of being the most effective dressing for venous ulcers; however, the quality of this evidence was low and uncertainty is high. Conclusions: Complex wounds are common and costly with a poor evidence base for many frequent clinical decisions. There is little routine clinical data collection in community nursing. A prospective complex wounds register has the potential to both assist clinical decision-making and provide important research evidence but would be challenging to implement without investment in information technology in NHS community services. Future work should focus on developing insights into typical wound healing trajectories, identifying factors that are prognostic for healing and assessing the cost-effectiveness of selected wound treatments. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Incidence of mesothelioma worldwide is growing and the UK reports the highest global incidence. Mesothelioma is an incurable cancer with a high symptom burden. However, it is under researched when compared to other cancers. The aim of this exercise was to identify unanswered questions about the mesothelioma patient and carer experience in the UK and to prioritise research areas of most importance through consultation with patients, carers and professionals. A virtual Research Prioritisation Exercise was conducted. This involved a review of mesothelioma patient and carer experience literature to identify research gaps and a national online survey to identify and rank research gaps. Following this, a modified consensus method with mesothelioma experts (patients, carers and professionals from healthcare, legal, academic and volunteer organisations) was undertaken to reach a consensus regarding mesothelioma patient and carer experience research priorities. Survey responses were received from 150 patients, carers and professionals and 29 research priorities were identified. During consensus meetings, 16 experts refined these into a list of 11 key priorities. The five most urgent priorities were symptom management, receiving a mesothelioma diagnosis, palliative and end of life care, treatment experiences, barriers and facilitators to joined up service provision. This novel priority setting exercise will shape the national research agenda, contribute knowledge to inform nursing and wider clinical practice and ultimately improve the experiences of mesothelioma patients and carers. What is known about this topic? • There are gaps in knowledge about the impact of living with mesothelioma. What this paper adds? • First mesothelioma patient and carer experience research prioritisation exercise. • Adopted virtual methods to enable safe and effective engagement with steering group. • Authentically captured the patient and carer voice to maximise research investment. • Generated a list of 11 research priorities to shape the national research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]