scholarly journals Priorities for research in child and adolescent anxiety and depression: a priority setting partnership with youth and professionals

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1221
Author(s):  
Brynhildur Axelsdóttir ◽  
Lise Mette Eidet ◽  
Ragnhild Thoner ◽  
Sølvi Biedilæ ◽  
Ingrid Borren ◽  
...  

Background: A starting point for evaluating the effectiveness of treatments should be to identify evidence gaps. Furthermore, such evaluations should consider the perspectives of patients, clinicians and carers to ensure relevance and potentially influence future research initiatives. Methods: Our approach, inspired by the James Lind Alliance methods, involved three steps. First, we performed a document analysis by identifying interventions and outcomes in two recently published overviews of systematic reviews, which summarised the effects of interventions for anxiety and depression in children and adolescents. Second, we surveyed children and adolescents with personal experiences of depression or anxiety as well as clinicians, and asked them to suggest treatments and outcomes associated with uncertainty. Finally, we facilitated a consensus process where clinicians and youth mental health patient representatives were invited to prioritise research uncertainties in separate consensus processes. Results: The survey included 674 respondents who reported a total of 1267 uncertainties. Independent coding by four investigators revealed 134 suggestions for treatments of anxiety, 90 suggestions for treatments of depression, 84 for outcomes of interventions for anxiety and 71 suggestions for outcomes of interventions for depression. Two separate priority setting workshops with eight clinicians and ten youth resulted in four independent top ten priority lists. Conclusion: Top ten lists of treatments and outcome domains of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents was identified by youth and clinicians. The results may influence the research agenda, and ultimately benefit patients.

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 1829-1838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Zheng ◽  
F. Rijsdijk ◽  
J.-B. Pingault ◽  
R. J. McMahon ◽  
J. B. Unger

BackgroundTwin and family studies using Western samples have established that child and adolescent anxiety and depression are under substantial genetic, modest shared environmental, and substantial non-shared environmental influences. Generalizability of these findings to non-Western societies remains largely unknown, particularly regarding the changes of genetic and environmental influences with age. The current study examined changes in genetic and environmental influences on self-reported anxiety and depression from late childhood to mid-adolescence among a Chinese twin sample. Sex differences were also examined.MethodSelf-reported anxiety and depression were collected from 712 10- to 12-year-old Chinese twins (mean = 10.88 years, 49% males) and again 3 years later. Quantitative genetic modeling was used to examine developmental changes in genetic and environmental influences on anxiety and depression, and sex differences.ResultsHeritability of anxiety and depression in late childhood (23 and 20%) decreased to negligible in mid-adolescence, while shared environmental influences increased (20 and 27% to 57 and 60%). Shared environmental factors explained most of the continuity of anxiety and depression (75 and 77%). Non-shared environmental factors were largely time-specific. No sex differences were observed.ConclusionsShared environmental influences might be more pronounced during the transition period of adolescence in non-Western societies such as China. Future research should examine similarities and differences in the genetic and environmental etiologies of child and adolescent internalizing and other psychopathology in development between Western and non-Western societies.


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 ◽  
Vol 180 (5) ◽  
pp. 1236-1237 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.C. Simpson ◽  
S.M. Cooper ◽  
G. Kirtschig ◽  
S. Larsen ◽  
S. Lawton ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhixing Huang ◽  
Natasha Duell

The prevalence of adolescents' mental disorders, especially anxiety and depression, has become a critical social issue that needs to be addressed. Conventional music therapy could be a useful tool to help teens manage their symptoms. However, few kinds of research have explored the potential function of listening to pop music to improve adolescents’ mental state. This paper explored a pivotal approach to whether scientifically proven pop music can help prevent anxiety and depression. The paper developed a criterion that is used for selecting pop music with mentally beneficial elements and created a playlist with songs selected under the criterion. Two survey-based studies, containing a professional diagnosis scale and various questions, qualitatively and quantitatively examined the playlist’s emotional impact. In Study 1, results indicated that the playlist could relieve anxiety symptoms, with less influence in depression. In Study 2, regular control measures and qualitative questions proved that the selected music exerted its intended positive emotional effects onto the listener and indicated that listening to the music on a daily basis may be useful in improving and maintaining one’s healthy mental state. The results were promising and suggested great potential in future research. The scientific use of pop music as a self-help method beneficial in tackling anxiety and depression among teenagers could be a prospective field of study.


Author(s):  
Abby Hunter ◽  
Louise Ross ◽  
Toto Gronlund ◽  
Sue Cooper

This study aimed to bring together people who smoke or vape, people who do not smoke and healthcare professionals to identify and agree priorities for electronic cigarette research in the UK. We carried out a priority setting partnership, guided by the methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance involving five key stages: initiation, consultation, collation, prioritisation and dissemination. A total of 765 people submitted 1887 questions that they wanted answered by research. Questions were organised into themes, merged and rewritten as summary questions, with 52 unique questions going forward to the prioritisation survey. Participants then ranked their top 10 questions. Following this ranking exercise, the top 26 were identified by selecting the most frequently prioritised questions adjusting for representative stakeholder group. These were put forward for discussion in the final prioritisation workshop, whereby the top 10 electronic cigarette research questions were agreed. The list of priorities identified will be of interest to researchers and funders of electronic cigarette research and will hopefully direct future research and funding calls. These priorities provide insight into the questions that matter to people who are using or concerned about e-cigarettes, including frontline professionals.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susie Aldiss ◽  
Lorna A Fern ◽  
Robert S Phillips ◽  
Amy Callaghan ◽  
Karen Dyker ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo conduct a UK-wide survey of young people who have experienced cancer, carers and professionals, to identify and prioritise research questions to inform decisions of research funders and support the case for research with this unique cancer population.DesignJames Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.SettingUK health service and community.MethodsA steering group oversaw the initiative and partner organisations were recruited. Unanswered questions were collected in an online survey. Evidence searching verified uncertainties. An interim survey was used to rank questions prior to a final prioritisation workshop.ParticipantsYoung people aged 13–24 years with a current or previous cancer diagnosis, their families, friends, partners and professionals who work with this population.ResultsTwo hundred and ninety-two respondents submitted 855 potential questions. Following a refining process and removal of ‘out of scope’ questions, 208 unique questions remained. Systematic evidence checking identified seven answered questions and 16 were the subject of ongoing studies. The interim survey was completed by 174 participants. The top 30 questions were prioritised at a workshop attended by 25 young people, parents and multidisciplinary professionals. The top three priorities are: (1) What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning and mental health during and after treatment? (2) What interventions, including self-care, can reduce or reverse adverse short-term and long-term effects of cancer treatment? (3) What are the best strategies to improve access to clinical trials? The remaining questions reflect the complete cancer pathway: new therapies, life after cancer, support, education/employment, relapse and end-of-life care.ConclusionsWe have identified shared research priorities for young people with cancer using a rigorous, person-centred approach involving stakeholders typically not involved in setting the research agenda. The breadth of priorities suggest future research should focus on holistic and psychosocial care delivery as well as traditional drug/biology research.


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatriz Goulao ◽  
Hanne Bruhn ◽  
Marion Campbell ◽  
Craig Ramsay ◽  
Katie Gillies

Abstract Background and aims Patient and public involvement is increasingly common in trials, but its quality remains variable in a lot of settings. Many key decisions in trials involve numbers, but patients are rarely involved in those discussions. We aimed to understand patient and public partners’ experiences and opinions regarding their involvement in numerical aspects of research and discuss and identify priorities, according to multiple stakeholders, around the most important numerical aspects in trials to involve patients and the public in. Methods The study had two stages: (1) online focus groups with patient and public partners recruited via online platforms and analysed using inductive thematic analysis and (2) online priority setting meeting with UK- and Ireland-based stakeholders and following James Lind Alliance methodology. Pre-selected numerical aspects were introduced prior to the meeting and discussed and prioritised based on a voting system. Results In stage 1, we held two focus groups with patient and public partners (n = 9). We identified four themes in the analysis: “Determinants of PPI in numerical aspects”, “Identity and roles”, “Impact of involving patients and the public in numerical aspects”. Patient and public partners believed being involved in numerical aspects of research is important and should be facilitated, but communication about these aspects needs to be clearer. An environment and relationship with researchers that facilitates that will include time for discussion, support to improve knowledge and confidence, clear language and definitions and trust. Patient and public partners perceive their role as bringing an outsider perspective and were mainly interested in involvement in assumptions and dissemination of quantitative research. They believed this can lead to more transparency and improve their experience by making involvement more meaningful. In stage 2, we identified twelve numerical aspects of trials to be prioritised. We held a priority setting meeting with 14 stakeholders, which led to the selection of three priority numerical aspects in patient and public involvement: target differences, interpretation of results and cost-effectiveness. Participants felt all aspects should be considered for involvement and their communication needs to ensure a shared level of understanding to avoid power imbalances. Conclusions Our work shows the importance of involving patient and public partners in numerical aspects of trials by assessing their experiences and motivations for the first time and discussing and prioritising which numerical aspects of trials are the most important for patients and the public to contribute to. Our research provides a platform for future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and a prioritised set of future research foci.


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.


Author(s):  
Anna Maria Rosso ◽  
Andrea Camoirano ◽  
Gabriele Schiaffino

Abstract. The aim of this study was to collect a Rorschach Comprehensive System (RCS) adult nonpatient sample from Italy using more stringent exclusion criteria and controlling for psychopathology, taking into account the methodological suggestions of Ritzler and Sciara (2008) . The authors hypothesized that: (a) adult nonpatient samples are not truly psychologically healthy, in that a high number of psychopathological symptoms are experienced by participants, particularly anxiety and depression, although they have never been in psychological treatment; (b) significant differences emerge between healthy and nonhealthy groups on Rorschach variables, particularly on CS psychopathological indexes; (c) RCS psychopathological indexes are significantly correlated in the expected direction with scores on psychopathological scales. The results confirmed the hypotheses, indicating the need to collect psychologically healthy samples in addition to normative and nonpatient samples. Because differences were found in the comparison between Exner’s sample (2007) and the healthy group in this study regarding form quality and coping styles, the authors suggest that future research should investigate the construct validity of ambitent style and culturally specific influences on form quality. Moreover, the Rorschach scientific community needs to have more extensive form quality tables, enriched with objects that are currently not included.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document