scholarly journals Development of research priorities in paediatric pain and palliative care

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Liossi ◽  
Anna-Karenia Anderson ◽  
Richard F Howard ◽  

Priority setting for healthcare research is as important as conducting the research itself because rigorous and systematic processes of priority setting can make an important contribution to the quality of research. This project aimed to prioritise clinical therapeutic uncertainties in paediatric pain and palliative care in order to encourage and inform the future research agenda and raise the profile of paediatric pain and palliative care in the United Kingdom. Clinical therapeutic uncertainties were identified and transformed into patient, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) format and prioritised using a modified Nominal Group Technique. Members of the Clinical Studies Group in Pain and Palliative Care within National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN)-Children took part in the prioritisation exercise. There were 11 clinically active professionals spanning across a wide range of paediatric disciplines and one parent representative. The top three research priorities related to establishing the safety and efficacy of (1) gabapentin in the management of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics, (2) intravenous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the management of post-operative pain in pre-schoolers and (3) different opioid formulations in the management of acute pain in children while at home. Questions about the long-term effect of psychological interventions in the management of chronic pain and various pharmacological interventions to improve pain and symptom management in palliative care were among the ‘top 10’ priorities. The results of prioritisation were included in the UK Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments (DUETS) database. Increased awareness of priorities and priority-setting processes should encourage clinicians and other stakeholders to engage in such exercises in the future.

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4984-4984
Author(s):  
Anthony Reiman ◽  
Samantha Fowler ◽  
Lauren McLaughlin ◽  
Sarah Bridges ◽  
Marc Robichaud ◽  
...  

Abstract Multiple myeloma, also referred to simply as myeloma, is an incurable cancer of the plasma cells. Every year, more than 3,000 Canadians are diagnosed with myeloma and more than 1,000 Canadians die from this disease. As a result of recent advances in treatment, people are living longer with myeloma. However, as the disease has yet no cure, further research is needed to continuously improve the diagnosis, treatment, and management of myeloma, and to provide a better quality of life for those living with this disease. The first project of its kind for myeloma, the Canadian Myeloma Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established in 2019 to identify research priorities shared by people with myeloma, caregivers and healthcare providers. The Canadian Myeloma PSP followed the rigorous methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance (JLA), a UK-based, non-profit initiative that seeks to reduce the gap that exists between funded research and the needs of the community. The project was generously funded and supported by Myeloma Canada, a national charitable organization exclusively devoted to improving the lives of Canadians impacted by myeloma. Following the JLA guidelines, we convened a national steering committee whose members consisted of people with myeloma, caregivers and healthcare providers; together, they guided the iterative priority setting process. The first phase of the process involved the development of a survey used to elicit unanswered research questions, also known as "uncertainties," relating to four wide-ranging topics: diagnosis, treatment, management, and living well with myeloma. The survey generated 3,042 uncertainties from 594 participants from across Canada. In the second phase of the process, the uncertainties were processed and verified according to the JLA guidelines to produce 76 indicative questions. These questions were subsequently reviewed to determine whether they fell within the project scope, and then compared against all available systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines on myeloma published within the previous ten years (2010-2020). This process yielded 45 indicative questions that were both within the scope of the project and unanswered by previous research. The third phase involved an interim prioritization survey which asked participants to select and rank their top 10 questions for future myeloma research from among the list of 45 indicative questions. A total of 651 participants from across the country completed the second survey and the results were used to create a shortlist of 18 questions. The shortlist was then submitted for discussion at a consensus-building or prioritization workshop. The prioritization workshop, the final phase of the PSP process, was held in April 2021. The online event was attended by 23 participants (people living with myeloma, caregivers and healthcare providers), while four JLA Advisors facilitated the discussions using nominal group techniques. This event produced a ranked list of the top 10 research priorities for future research on myeloma (see Table 1).These priorities will be disseminated as widely as possible among researchers, clinicians, research funders and the broader myeloma community. The goal is not only to inform on, but also to solicit funding for future research directions that are meaningful to those directly affected by the disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Reiman: Myeloma Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, New Brunswick Health Research Foundation, Canadian Cancer Society, Terry Fox Research Institute, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, BristolMyersSquibb,: Research Funding; Myeloma Canada: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Compositions and Methods for Inhibiting Blood Cancer Cell Growth. Canadian Patent Pending 176000 (2017-10-20) Peptides for the Treatment of Resorptive Bone Disease. Murugesan A and Reiman T. United States Provisional Patent; 62/249,471 (2015-11-02). Cance: Patents & Royalties. Reece: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Song: Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria.


Crisis ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Andriessen ◽  
Dolores Angela Castelli Dransart ◽  
Julie Cerel ◽  
Myfanwy Maple

Abstract. Background: Suicide can have a lasting impact on the social life as well as the physical and mental health of the bereaved. Targeted research is needed to better understand the nature of suicide bereavement and the effectiveness of support. Aims: To take stock of ongoing studies, and to inquire about future research priorities regarding suicide bereavement and postvention. Method: In March 2015, an online survey was widely disseminated in the suicidology community. Results: The questionnaire was accessed 77 times, and 22 records were included in the analysis. The respondents provided valuable information regarding current research projects and recommendations for the future. Limitations: Bearing in mind the modest number of replies, all from respondents in Westernized countries, it is not known how representative the findings are. Conclusion: The survey generated three strategies for future postvention research: increase intercultural collaboration, increase theory-driven research, and build bonds between research and practice. Future surveys should include experiences with obtaining research grants and ethical approval for postvention studies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e001108
Author(s):  
Omar Heyward ◽  
Stacey Emmonds ◽  
Gregory Roe ◽  
Sean Scantlebury ◽  
Keith Stokes ◽  
...  

Women’s rugby (rugby league, rugby union and rugby sevens) has recently grown in participation and professionalisation. There is under-representation of women-only cohorts within applied sport science and medicine research and within the women’s rugby evidence base. The aims of this article are: Part 1: to undertake a systematic-scoping review of the applied sport science and medicine of women’s rugby, and Part 2: to develop a consensus statement on future research priorities. This article will be designed in two parts: Part 1: a systematic-scoping review, and Part 2: a three-round Delphi consensus method. For Part 1, systematic searches of three electronic databases (PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost)) will be performed from the earliest record. These databases will be searched to identify any sport science and medicine themed studies within women’s rugby. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews will be adhered to. Part 2 involves a three-round Delphi consensus method to identify future research priorities. Identified experts in women’s rugby will be provided with overall findings from Part 1 to inform decision-making. Participants will then be asked to provide a list of research priority areas. Over the three rounds, priority areas achieving consensus (≥70% agreement) will be identified. This study has received institutional ethical approval. When complete, the manuscript will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The findings of this article will have relevance for a wide range of stakeholders in women’s rugby, including policymakers and governing bodies.


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 379-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jones ◽  
Jaimin Bhatt ◽  
Jonathan Avery ◽  
Andreas Laupacis ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
...  

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Payne ◽  
Pennie Frow

Purpose This paper aims to review the growth and development of the field of relationship marketing and, through a consideration of this body of work, identifies key research priorities for the future of relationship marketing. The paper also delineates the frequently confused associated concepts of customer relationship management and customer management and considers how they fit within the broader concept of relationship marketing. Design/methodology/approach This paper undertakes a review of the relationship marketing literature, supplemented by the authors’ on-going interactive research with managers. Findings The paper reviews alternative approaches to relationship marketing, reflects on the development of the field of relationship marketing and identifies three critical priorities for future research in relationship marketing. Practical implications The research priorities that are identified in this paper represent important priorities for scholars, managers, regulators and policy makers. Originality/value Although there is now a substantial body of research on relationship, marketing, much of this work focuses on the customer-firm dyad, with a smaller body of work focusing on a broader range of stakeholders. This paper argues for the broadening of the role of relationship marketing to consider ecosystems; the need for firms to shift from a value-in-exchange to a value-in-use perspective when addressing customer relationships; and the critical need to address “dark side” behaviour and dysfunctional processes in relationship marketing.


CMAJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. E654-E664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn A. Birnie ◽  
Katherine Dib ◽  
Carley Ouellette ◽  
Mary Anne Dib ◽  
Kimberly Nelson ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Fackrell ◽  
Linda Stratmann ◽  
Veronica Kennedy ◽  
Carol MacDonald ◽  
Hilary Hodgson ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo determine research priorities in hyperacusis that key stakeholders agree are the most important.Design/settingA priority setting partnership using two international surveys, and a UK prioritisation workshop, adhering to the six-staged methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance.ParticipantsPeople with lived experience of hyperacusis, parents/carers, family and friends, educational professionals and healthcare professionals who support and/or treat adults and children who experience hyperacusis, including but not limited to surgeons, audiologists, psychologists and hearing therapists.MethodsThe priority setting partnership was conducted from August 2017 to July 2018. An international identification survey asked respondents to submit any questions/uncertainties about hyperacusis. Uncertainties were categorised, refined and rephrased into representative indicative questions using thematic analysis techniques. These questions were verified as ‘unanswered’ through searches of current evidence. A second international survey asked respondents to vote for their top 10 priority questions. A shortlist of questions that represented votes from all stakeholder groups was prioritised into a top 10 at the final prioritisation workshop (UK).ResultsIn the identification survey, 312 respondents submitted 2730 uncertainties. Of those uncertainties, 593 were removed as out of scope, and the remaining were refined into 85 indicative questions. None of the indicative questions had already been answered in research. The second survey collected votes from 327 respondents, which resulted in a shortlist of 28 representative questions for the final workshop. Consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities for future research, including identifying causes and underlying mechanisms, effective management and training for healthcare professionals.ConclusionsThese priorities were identified and shaped by people with lived experience, parents/carers and healthcare professionals, and as such are an essential resource for directing future research in hyperacusis. Researchers and funders should focus on addressing these priorities.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne B. Wichmann ◽  
Lia C.M.J. Goltstein ◽  
Ndidi J. Obihara ◽  
Madeleine R. Berendsen ◽  
Mark van Houdenhoven ◽  
...  

Abstract Background. The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is internationally recognized as standard metric of health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in healthcare. The ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care has been recently mapped in a review. Aim. To report on and draw conclusions from two expert meetings that reflected on earlier mapped issues in order to reach consensus, and to advise on the QALY’s future use in palliative care. Methods. A nominal group approach was used. In order to facilitate group decision making, three statements regarding the use of the QALY in palliative care were discussed in a structured way. Two groups of international policymakers, healthcare professionals and researchers participated. Data were analysed qualitatively using inductive coding. Findings. 1) Most experts agreed that the recommended measurement tool for the QALYs ‘Q’ component, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), is inappropriate for palliative care. A more sensitive tool, which might be based on the capabilities approach, could be used or developed. 2) Valuation of time should be incorporated in the ‘Q’ part, leaving the linear clock time in the ‘LY’ component. 3) Most experts agreed that the QALY, in its current shape, is not suitable for palliative care. Discussion. 1) Although the EQ-5D does not suffice, a generic tool is needed for the QALY. As long as no suitable alternative is available, other tools can be used besides or serve as basis for the EQ-5D because of issues in conceptual overlap. 2) Future research should further investigate the valuation of time issue, and how best to integrate it in the ‘Q’ component. 3) A generic outcome measure of effectiveness is essential to justly allocate healthcare resources. However, experts emphasized, the QALY is and should be one of multiple criteria for choices in the healthcare insurance package.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Roschelle ◽  
James Lester ◽  
Judi Fusco

This report is based on the discussion that emerged from a convening of a panel of 22 experts in artificial intelligence (AI) and in learning. It introduces three layers that can frame the meaning of AI for educators. First, AI can be seen as “computational intelligence” and capability can be brought to bear on educational challenges as an additional resource to an educator’s abilities and strengths. Second, AI brings specific, exciting new capabilities to computing, including sensing, recognizing patterns, representing knowledge, making and acting on plans, and supporting naturalistic interactions with people. Third, AI can be used as a toolkit to enable us to imagine, study, and discuss futures for learning that don’t exist today. Experts voiced the opinion that the most impactful uses of AI in education have not yet been invented. The report enumerates important strengths and weaknesses of AI, as well as the respective opportunities and barriers to applying AI to learning. Through discussions among experts about these layers, we observed new design concepts for using AI in learning. The panel also made seven recommendations for future research priorities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document