scholarly journals Research priorities for neuroimmunology: identifying the key research questions to be addressed by 2030

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 194
Author(s):  
Georgina MacKenzie ◽  
Sumithra Subramaniam ◽  
Lindsey J Caldwell ◽  
Denise Fitzgerald ◽  
Neil A Harrison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neural Development ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Optimal Timing ◽  
Significant Progress ◽  
Medium Term ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms

Neuroimmunology in the broadest sense is the study of interactions between the nervous and the immune systems. These interactions play important roles in health from supporting neural development, homeostasis and plasticity to modifying behaviour. Neuroimmunology is increasingly recognised as a field with the potential to deliver a significant positive impact on human health and treatment for neurological and psychiatric disorders. Yet, translation to the clinic is hindered by fundamental knowledge gaps on the underlying mechanisms of action or the optimal timing of an intervention, and a lack of appropriate tools to visualise and modulate both systems. Here we propose ten key disease-agnostic research questions that, if addressed, could lead to significant progress within neuroimmunology in the short to medium term. We also discuss four cross-cutting themes to be considered when addressing each question: i) bi-directionality of neuroimmune interactions; ii) the biological context in which the questions are addressed (e.g. health vs disease vs across the lifespan); iii) tools and technologies required to fully answer the questions; and iv) translation into the clinic. We acknowledge that these ten questions cannot represent the full breadth of gaps in our understanding; rather they focus on areas which, if addressed, may have the most broad and immediate impacts. By defining these neuroimmunology priorities, we hope to unite existing and future research teams, who can make meaningful progress through a collaborative and cross-disciplinary effort.

scholarly journals A consensus building exercise to determine research priorities for silver trauma

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah Alshibani ◽  
Jay Banerjee ◽  
Fiona Lecky ◽  
Timothy J. Coats ◽  
Rebecca Prest ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Care ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Trauma Centre ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
List Type ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Modified Delphi Technique ◽  
Research Questions

Abstract Background Emergency care research into ‘Silver Trauma’, which is simply defined as major trauma consequent upon relatively minor injury mechanisms, is facing many challenges including that at present, there is no clear prioritisation of the issues. This study aimed to determine the top research priorities to guide future research. Methods This consensus-based prioritization exercise used a three-stage modified Delphi technique. The study consisted of an idea generating (divergent) first round, a ranking evaluation in the second round, and a (convergent) consensus meeting in the third round. Results A total of 20 research questions advanced to the final round of this study. After discussing the importance and clinical significance of each research question, five research questions were prioritised by the experts; the top three research priorities were: What are older people’s preferred goals of trauma care? Beyond the Emergency Department (ED), what is the appropriate combined geriatric and trauma care? Do older adults benefit from access to trauma centres? If so, do older trauma patients have equitable access to trauma centre compared to younger adults? Conclusion The results of this study will assist clinicians, researchers, and organisations that are interested in silver trauma in guiding their future efforts and funding toward addressing the identified research priorities.

scholarly journals Identifying and prioritising unanswered research questions for people with hyperacusis: James Lind Alliance Hyperacusis Priority Setting Partnership

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Fackrell ◽  
Linda Stratmann ◽  
Veronica Kennedy ◽  
Carol MacDonald ◽  
Hilary Hodgson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Essential Resource ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

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.

Recovery colleges: quality and outcomes

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 212-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Meddings ◽  
Jane McGregor ◽  
Waldo Roeg ◽  
Geoff Shepherd
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Change ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative Methods ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Recovery Colleges. To make suggestions for future research. Design/methodology/approach – Selective review of relevant published studies, including reports in the “grey” literature. Findings – Despite methodological limitations, it has been consistently found that attendance at Recovery Colleges is perceived to be useful and to help people progress towards their recovery goals. There is some evidence of reductions in service use (and therefore costs). In addition, there is evidence of beneficial effects for peer trainers and possible positive impact on staff attitudes. Research limitations/implications – The existing research highlights the need for further robust studies, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, to understand better the overall impact of Recovery Colleges and the underlying mechanisms of change. Practical implications – There is a need for further studies of the relationship between the “key defining features” and outcomes. This means the collection and pooling of systematic, “practice-based” evidence. Social implications – The introduction of an explicitly recovery educational (“learning”) model into mainstream mental health services seems to have a profound effect on reducing the power differences inherent in traditional professional/patient relationships. If this can be replicated across organisations it could facilitate the kind of fundamental cultural change necessary to give back recovery to the people who have always owned it. Originality/value – The information collected together in this paper is already publicly available, however it is difficult to find. The analysis and interpretation is original.

scholarly journals TP9.1.4Use of a modified Delphi process to develop research priorities in Major Trauma

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke McElroy ◽  
J McGillivray ◽  
Michael Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Major Trauma ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Delphi Process ◽  
Future Research ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Trauma Research ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Research Questions

Abstract Aims Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK. Methods A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Prehospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus among the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions. Results 201 questions across all were submitted by 65 stakeholders in phase 1. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Conclusions Consensus from within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centric multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.

SP3.1.1Research Priorities in Emergency General Surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Vaughan ◽  
Robert Pearson ◽  
Jared Wohlgemut ◽  
Stephen Knight ◽  
Michael Wilson
Keyword(s):  
General Surgery ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Emergency General Surgery ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Surgical Subspecialty ◽  
Research Questions

Abstract Aims Delphi methodology can be used to achieve consensus opinion amongst experts in a particular field. This study used a modified Delphi approach to identify research priorities in emergency general surgery (EGS). The aim was to establish a research agenda using a formal consensus-based approach in an effort to identify questions relevant to EGS that have been prioritised by relevant stakeholders with an equal voice. Methods Three rounds were conducted using an electronic questionnaire and involved health care professionals, research personnel, patients and their relatives. In the first round stakeholders were invited to submit clinical research questions that they felt were priorities for future research. In rounds two and three, participants were asked to score individual questions in order of priority using a 5-point Linkert scale. Between rounds an expert panel were asked to analyse results before forwarding questions to subsequent rounds. Results Ninety-two EGS research questions were proposed in Phase 1. Following the first round of prioritisation, 47 questions progressed to the final phase. A final list of 17 research questions were identified from the final round of prioritisation. These included questions on peri-operative strategies, EGS outcomes in elderly and frail patients as well as non-technical and technical influences on EGS outcomes. Conclusion Our study provides a consensus delivered framework that should determine the research agenda for future EGS projects. It may also assist setting priorities for research funding and multi-centre collaborative strategies within the surgical subspecialty of EGS.

scholarly journals Ecotoxicological Impacts of Micro- and Nanoplastics in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments

2021 ◽  
pp. 199-260
Author(s):  
Tânia Gomes ◽  
Agathe Bour ◽  
Claire Coutris ◽  
Ana Catarina Almeida ◽  
Inger Lise Bråte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Priorities ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Aquatic Organisms ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Aquatic Environments ◽  
Plastic Pollution ◽  
Toxicological Effects ◽  
Particle Characteristics ◽  
Ecotoxicological Effects ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms

AbstractPlastic pollution is a widespread environmental problem that is currently one of the most discussed issues by scientists, policymakers and society at large. The potential ecotoxicological effects of plastic particles in a wide range of organisms have been investigated in a growing number of exposure studies over the past years. Nonetheless, many questions still remain regarding the overall effects of microplastics and nanoplastics on organisms from different ecosystem compartments, as well as the underlying mechanisms behind the observed toxicity. This chapter provides a comprehensive literature review on the ecotoxicological impacts of microplastics and nanoplastics in terrestrial and aquatic organisms in the context of particle characteristics, interactive toxicological effects, taxonomic gradients and with a focus on synergies with associated chemicals. Overall, a total of 220 references were reviewed for their fulfilment of specific quality criteria (e.g. experimental design, particle characteristics, ecotoxicological endpoints and findings), after which 175 were included in our assessment. The analysis of the reviewed studies revealed that organisms’ responses were overall influenced by the physicochemical heterogeneity of the plastic particles used, for which distinct differences were attributed to polymer type, size, morphology and surface alterations. On the other hand, little attention has been paid to the role of additive chemicals in the overall toxicity. There is still little consistency regarding the biological impacts posed by plastic particles, with observed ecotoxicological effects being highly dependent on the environmental compartment assessed and specific morphological, physiological and behavioural traits of the species used. Nonetheless, evidence exists of impacts across successive levels of biological organization, covering effects from the subcellular level up to the ecosystem level. This review presents the important research gaps concerning the ecotoxicological impacts of plastic particles in different taxonomical groups, as well as recommendations on future research priorities needed to better understand the ecological risks of plastic particles in terrestrial and aquatic environments.

scholarly journals Developing research priorities in Australian primary health care: a focus on nutrition and physical activity

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Ball ◽  
Katelyn Barnes ◽  
Michael Leveritt ◽  
Lana Mitchell ◽  
Lauren T. Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Healthy Lifestyle ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Lifestyle Behaviours ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
Research Questions

Research priority setting is an important component of research planning, particularly when research options exceed available resources. This study identified the research priorities for supporting healthy lifestyle behaviours in the Australian primary healthcare setting. A five-step stakeholder engagement process was undertaken. Ten stakeholder organisations participated in the process, including patient representatives, health professional associations, health educators, researchers, government advisors and policymakers. Each organisation was asked to provide up to three research questions deemed as a priority. Research questions were critically appraised by the project team for answerability, sustainability, effectiveness, potential for translation and potential to affect disease burden. A blinded scoring system was used to rank the appraised questions, with higher scores indicating higher priority (range of scores possible 87–156). Thirteen unique research questions were submitted by stakeholders and achieved a range of scores from 87 to 139 points. The highest scoring research questions focused on: (i) the effectiveness of different health professionals at facilitating healthy lifestyle behaviours; (ii) the effect of health literacy on behaviour change; and (iii) cost-benefit analysis of healthy lifestyle promotion in primary health care. These priorities can be used to ensure future research projects directly align with the needs and preferences of research end-users.

scholarly journals Identifying and Prioritizing Information Needs and Research Priorities of Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Practitioners

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 552-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexa L. Siegfried ◽  
Eric G. Carbone ◽  
Michael B. Meit ◽  
Mallory J. Kennedy ◽  
Hussain Yusuf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Public Health Emergency ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Perceived Knowledge ◽  
Emergency Preparedness And Response ◽  
Public Health Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Research Questions

AbstractObjectiveThis study describes findings from an assessment conducted to identify perceived knowledge gaps, information needs, and research priorities among state, territorial, and local public health preparedness directors and coordinators related to public health emergency preparedness and response (PHPR). The goal of the study was to gather information that would be useful for ensuring that future funding for research and evaluation targets areas most critical for advancing public health practice.MethodsWe implemented a mixed-methods approach to identify and prioritize PHPR research questions. A web survey was sent to all state, city, and territorial health agencies funded through the Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement program and a sample of local health departments (LHDs). Three focus groups of state and local practitioners and subject matter experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were subsequently conducted, followed by 3 meetings of an expert panel of PHPR practitioners and CDC experts to prioritize and refine the research questions.ResultsWe identified a final list of 44 research questions that were deemed by study participants as priority topics where future research can inform PHPR programs and practice. We identified differences in perceived research priorities between PHEP awardees and LHD survey respondents; the number of research questions rated as important was greater among LHDs than among PHEP awardees (75%, n=33, compared to 24%, n=15).ConclusionsThe research questions identified provide insight into public health practitioners’ perceived knowledge gaps and the types of information that would be most useful for informing and advancing PHPR practice. The study also points to a higher level of information need among LHDs than among PHEP awardees. These findings are important for CDC and the PHPR research community to ensure that future research studies are responsive to practitioners’ needs and provide the information required to enhance their capacity to meet the needs of the communities and jurisdictions they serve. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:552–561)

scholarly journals UK Research Priorities for Electronic Cigarettes: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (22) ◽  
pp. 8500
Author(s):  
Abby Hunter ◽  
Louise Ross ◽  
Toto Gronlund ◽  
Sue Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Electronic Cigarettes ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Electronic Cigarette ◽  
Future Research ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership ◽  
Insight Into

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.

scholarly journals Research priorities for the pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support practice guides: a modified nominal group consensus

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
L. A. Jibb ◽  
D. Stacey ◽  
M. Carley ◽  
A. Davis ◽  
I. D. Graham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Nominal Group Technique ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Health Services Use ◽  
Stakeholder Collaboration ◽  
Meaningful Engagement ◽  
Research Questions

Introduction The pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (costars) team is studying how to improve the quality and consistency of cancer symptom management.Methods A 1-day invitational meeting was held 24 October 2017 in Ottawa, Ontario, to review the current evidence from costars projects and to establish research priorities for a future largescale implementation study. The meeting included 36 participants who were clinicians from adult oncology, pediatric oncology, and homecare; policymakers from national, provincial, and regional organizations; researchers; and a patient. Half the day involved summarizing evidence from four costars studies and experiences with implementing the costars symptom practice guides. The second half of the day used a modified nominal group technique to generate research questions within small groups, presentation of research questions to all participants, and two rounds of voting to reach consensus on research priorities.Results Participants proposed 4 research categories:■ User-centred augmentation to enhance usability (for example, designing a mobile costars solution)■ Outcome measurement (for example, determining key competencies for clinicians)■ Regular renewal of costars to keep pace with evolving evidence (for example, updates for novel therapies)■ Integration into clinical practice (for example, meaningful engagement of patients and caregivers in study design)Conclusions Across categories, the top 3 priorities were effect on health services use, competency development, and a mobile costars solution. Future research will address identified priorities, reflecting the needs and perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Stakeholder collaboration will continue to guide our approach to operationalizing this priority research agenda.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document