scholarly journals Identifying priority review questions for Cochrane Eyes and Vision: protocol for a priority setting exercise

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046319
Author(s):  
Jennifer R Evans ◽  
Iris Gordon ◽  
John G Lawrenson ◽  
Roses Parker ◽  
Fiona J Rowe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Priority Review ◽  
London School ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Internal Stakeholders ◽  
Priority Setting Exercise

IntroductionCochrane Eyes and Vision (CEV) is an international network of individuals working to prepare, maintain and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions to treat, prevent or diagnose eye diseases or vision impairment. CEV plans to undertake a priority setting exercise to identify systematically research questions relevant to our scope, and to formally incorporate input from a wide range of stakeholders to set priorities for new and updated reviews.Methods and analysisThe scope of CEV is broad and our reviews include conditions that are common and have a high global disease burden, for example, cataract and dry eye disease, and conditions that are rare but have a high impact on quality of life and high individual cost such as eye cancer. We plan to focus on conditions prioritised by WHO during the development of the Package of Eye Care Interventions. These conditions were selected based on a combination of data on disease magnitude, healthcare use and expert opinion. We will identify priority review questions systematically by summarising relevant data on research in Eyes and Vision from a range of sources, and compiling a list of 10–15 potential review questions (new and/or updates) for each condition group. We will seek the views of external and internal stakeholders on this list by conducting an online survey. Equity will be a specific consideration.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the ethics committee of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. We will disseminate the findings through Cochrane channels and prepare a summary of the work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

scholarly journals Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

Trials ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Rosala-Hallas ◽  
Aneel Bhangu ◽  
Jane Blazeby ◽  
Louise Bowman ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Methodological Research ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Priority Setting Exercise

scholarly journals What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Brunsdon ◽  
Linda Biesty ◽  
Peter Brocklehurst ◽  
Valerie Brueton ◽  
Declan Devane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

Abstract Background One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. Methods This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The ‘Top 10’ of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was ’What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?’ The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie. Conclusion The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

scholarly journals Research Priorities for the Intersection of Alcohol and HIV/AIDS in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Priority Setting Exercise

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (S2) ◽  
pp. 262-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Gordon ◽  
Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus ◽  
Sarah Skeen ◽  
Charles Perry ◽  
Kendall Bryant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Priority Setting Exercise ◽  
Low And Middle Income ◽  
Hiv Aids

scholarly journals What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – The PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) Study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Brunsdon ◽  
Linda Biesty ◽  
Peter Brocklehurst ◽  
Valerie Brueton ◽  
Declan Devane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

Abstract Background One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. Methods This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients and public) in jointly identifying and agreeing priority research questions. There were three stages (i) An initial online survey consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure they had not been answered by existing research. (ii) An interim stage, which involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist.. (iii) A face-to-face consensus meeting, where key stakeholder representatives agreed an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results 456 respondents yielded 2,431 answers to six open ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the steering group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting, in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The Top 10 of these is reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was “What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?” The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie. Conclusion The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

Occupational and Functional Implications of Breast Cancer Among Israeli Women

2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 7512510269p1-7512510269p1
Author(s):  
Danit Langer ◽  
Hagit Magen ◽  
Shlomit Tendler ◽  
Asnat Bar-Haim Erez
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Rehabilitation Process ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Perceived Quality Of Life ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Functional Implications ◽  
Upper Extremity Function

Abstract Date Presented Accepted for AOTA INSPIRE 2021 but unable to be presented due to online event limitations. The goal of the study was to evaluate the long-term implications of breast cancer (BC) on upper extremity function, participation, and perceived quality of life (QoL) among Israeli women and examine the utilization of OT services in the rehabilitation process. The study included two steps: (1) an online survey and (3) face-to-face in-depth evaluation. Women with BC reported a wide range of impairments that are within the domain of OT, but only a small minority received OT services. Primary Author and Speaker: Danit Langer Contributing Authors: Hagit Magen, Shlomit Tendler, and Asnat Bar-Haim Erez

scholarly journals Employer-Supported Volunteerism in Rural Worksites

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (10) ◽  
pp. 512-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faryle Nothwehr ◽  
Diane Rohlman
Keyword(s):  
Employee Engagement ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Resource Conservation ◽  
Descriptive Statistics ◽  
The Social ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Employee Volunteerism

Employer-supported volunteerism has the potential to benefit employees and ultimately have a positive business impact. Volunteerism has been linked to improved quality of life, reduced morbidity, and higher self-rated health. This study was designed to understand what small, rural worksites are doing with regard to volunteerism, and what their barriers are to such activities. An online survey was distributed to worksites using the social network of a Resource, Conservation, and Development Council, a rural nonprofit entity. Analyses included descriptive statistics, and for qualitative data, review and summary of common themes. Thirty-eight worksites responded, representing a wide range of worksite types. Volunteer activities requiring less time and resources to organize were more commonly employed versus group-based activities. Identified barriers included time, costs, small staffing numbers, perceived employee lack of interest, worksite policies, distance to volunteer sites, language barriers, and lack of awareness of opportunities. Despite a variety of challenges, some forms of employer-supported volunteerism seem feasible even in very small rural worksites. Worksite type, culture, and leadership are likely to be determinants of the extent and nature of employer-supported volunteerism. Strategies to encourage greater volunteerism need to be tailored to the interests and resources of each site. Occupational health nurses should consider incorporating some form of employee volunteerism activities within their health promotion programming, as it is consistent with an overall strategy of enhancing employee well-being. This could lead to positive business impacts such as increased employee engagement, improved recruitment and retention, and improved productivity.

scholarly journals Author Correction: Research Priorities for the Intersection of Alcohol and HIV/AIDS in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Priority Setting Exercise

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 2383-2383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Gordon ◽  
Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus ◽  
Sarah Skeen ◽  
Charles Parry ◽  
Kendall Bryant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Priority Setting Exercise ◽  
Low And Middle Income ◽  
Hiv Aids

scholarly journals Evidence and research perspectives for surgeons in the European Rectal Cancer Consensus Conference (EURECA-CC2)

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 9-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Valentini ◽  
C. Coco ◽  
M.A. Gambacorta ◽  
M.C. Barba ◽  
E. Meldolesi
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Committee Member ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Research Perspectives ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Substantial Progress ◽  
Rectal Cancer Treatment ◽  
Research Questions

PURPOSE: Although surgery remains the most important treatment of rectal cancer, the management of this disease has evolved to become more multidisciplinary to offer the best clinical outcome. The International Conference on Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: Looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) had the due to identify the degree of consensus that could be achieved across a wide range of topics relating to the management of rectal cancer helping shape future programs, investigational protocols and guidelines for staging and treatment throughout Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. Eight chapters were identified: epidemiology, diagnostics, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment toxicity and quality of life, follow-up, and research questions. Each chapter was subdivided by topic, and a series of statements were developed. Each committee member commented and voted, sentence by sentence three times. Sentences which did not reach agreement after voting round # 2 were openly debated during the Conference in Perugia (Italy) December 2008. The Executive Committee scored percentage consensus based on three categories: 'large consensus', 'moderate consensus', 'minimum consensus'. RESULTS: The total number of the voted sentences was 207. Of the 207, 86% achieved large consensus, 13% achieved moderate consensus, and only 3 (1%) resulted in minimum consensus. No statement was disagreed by more than 50% of members. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the members, and the majority was voted on by 85%. CONCLUSIONS: This Consensus Conference represents an expertise opinion process that may help shape future programs, investigational protocols, and guidelines for staging and treatment of rectal cancer throughout Europe. In spite of substantial progress, many research challenges remain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document