scholarly journals Dutch patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals generate first nationwide research agenda for juvenile idiopathic arthritis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anouk Verwoerd ◽  
Wineke Armbrust ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
Lotte van den Berg ◽  
Joke de Boer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Nationwide Survey ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Personalised Treatment

Abstract Background: Involving the end-users of scientific research (patients, carers and clinicians) in setting research priorities is important to formulate research questions that truly make a difference and are in tune with the needs of patients. We therefore aimed to generate a national research agenda for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) together with patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals through conducting a nationwide survey among these stakeholders.Methods: The James Lind Alliance method was used, tailored with additional focus groups held to involve younger patients. First, research questions were gathered through an online and hardcopy survey. The received questions that were in scope were summarised and a literature search was performed to verify that questions were unanswered. Questions were ranked in the interim survey, and the final top 10 was chosen during a prioritisation workshop.Results: Two hundred and seventy-eight respondents submitted 604 questions, of which 519 were in scope. Of these 604 questions, 81 were generated in the focus groups with younger children. The questions were summarised into 53 summary questions. An evidence checking process verified that all questions were unanswered. A total of 303 respondents prioritised the questions in the interim survey. Focus groups with children generated a top 5 of their most important questions. Combining this top 5 with the top 10 s of patients, carers, and clinicians led to a top 21. Out of these, the top 10 research priorities were chosen during a final workshop. Research into pain and fatigue, personalised treatment strategies and aetiology were ranked high in the Top 10.Conclusions: Through this study, the top 10 research priorities for JIA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians were identified to inform researchers and research funders of the research topics that matter most to them. The top priority involves the treatment and mechanisms behind persisting pain and fatigue when the disease is in remission.

scholarly journals Dutch patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals generate first nationwide research agenda for juvenile idiopathic arthritis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anouk Verwoerd ◽  
Wineke Armbrust ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
Lotte van den Berg ◽  
Joke de Boer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Nationwide Survey ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Personalised Treatment

Abstract Background Involving the end-users of scientific research (patients, carers and clinicians) in setting research priorities is important to formulate research questions that truly make a difference and are in tune with the needs of patients. We therefore aimed to generate a national research agenda for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) together with patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals through conducting a nationwide survey among these stakeholders.Methods The James Lind Alliance method was used, tailored with additional focus groups held to involve younger patients. First, research questions were gathered through an online and hardcopy survey. The received questions that were in scope were summarised and a literature search was performed to verify that questions were unanswered. Questions were ranked in the interim survey, and the final top 10 was chosen during a prioritisation workshop. Results Two hundred and seventy-eight respondents submitted 604 questions, of which 519 were in scope. Of these 604 questions, 81 were generated in the focus groups with younger children. The questions were summarised into 53 summary questions. An evidence checking process verified that all questions were unanswered. A total of 303 respondents prioritised the questions in the interim survey. Focus groups with children generated a top 5 of their most important questions. Combining this top 5 with the top 10s of patients, carers, and clinicians led to a top 21. Out of these, the top 10 research priorities were chosen during a final workshop. Research into pain and fatigue, personalised treatment strategies and aetiology were ranked high in the Top 10.Conclusions Through this study, the top 10 research priorities for JIA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians were identified to inform researchers and research funders of the research topics that matter most to them. The top priority involves the treatment and mechanisms behind persisting pain and fatigue when the disease is in remission.

scholarly journals Dutch patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals generate first nationwide research agenda for juvenile idiopathic arthritis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anouk Verwoerd ◽  
Wineke Armbrust ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
Lotte van den Berg ◽  
Joke de Boer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Nationwide Survey ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Personalised Treatment

Abstract Background Involving the end-users of scientific research (patients, carers and clinicians) in setting research priorities is important to formulate research questions that truly make a difference and are in tune with the needs of patients. We therefore aimed to generate a national research agenda for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) together with patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals through conducting a nationwide survey among these stakeholders. Methods The James Lind Alliance method was used, tailored with additional focus groups held to involve younger patients. First, research questions were gathered through an online and hardcopy survey. The received questions that were in scope were summarised and a literature search was performed to verify that questions were unanswered. Questions were ranked in the interim survey, and the final top 10 was chosen during a prioritisation workshop. Results Two hundred and seventy-eight respondents submitted 604 questions, of which 519 were in scope. Of these 604 questions, 81 were generated in the focus groups with younger children. The questions were summarised into 53 summary questions. An evidence checking process verified that all questions were unanswered. A total of 303 respondents prioritised the questions in the interim survey. Focus groups with children generated a top 5 of their most important questions. Combining this top 5 with the top 10s of patients, carers, and clinicians led to a top 21. Out of these, the top 10 research priorities were chosen during a final workshop. Research into pain and fatigue, personalised treatment strategies and aetiology were ranked high in the Top 10. Conclusions Through this study, the top 10 research priorities for JIA of patients, their caregivers and clinicians were identified to inform researchers and research funders of the research topics that matter most to them. The top priority involves the treatment and mechanisms behind persisting pain and fatigue when the disease is in remission.

scholarly journals Research priorities in fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e023301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel A Fernandez ◽  
Laura Arnel ◽  
Jenny Gould ◽  
Alwin McGibbon ◽  
Richard Grant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Weight Bearing ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Occupational Therapists ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectiveTo determine research priorities in fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis which represent the shared priorities of patients, their friends and families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/settingA national (UK) research priority setting partnership.ParticipantsPatients over 60 years of age who have experienced a fragility fracture of the lower limb or pelvis; carers involved in their care (both in and out of hospital); family and friends of patients; healthcare professionals involved in the treatment of these patients including but not limited to surgeons, anaesthetists, paramedics, nurses, general practitioners, physicians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists.MethodsUsing a multiphase methodology in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 18 months (August 2016–January 2018), a national scoping survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties. These were amalgamated into a smaller number of research questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not been answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 25 questions was taken to a multistakeholder workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.ResultsThere were 963 original uncertainties submitted by 365 respondents to the first survey. These original uncertainties were refined into 88 research questions of which 76 were judged to be true uncertainties following a review of the research evidence. Healthcare professionals and other stakeholders (patients, carers, friends and families) were represented equally in the responses. The top 10 represent uncertainties in rehabilitation, pain management, anaesthesia and surgery.ConclusionsWe report the top 10 UK research priorities in patients with fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis. The priorities highlight uncertainties in rehabilitation, postoperative physiotherapy, pain, weight-bearing, infection and thromboprophylaxis. The challenge now is to refine and deliver answers to these research priorities.

scholarly journals Research priorities in children requiring elective surgery for conditions affecting the lower limbs: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e033233
Author(s):  
Martinique Vella-Baldacchino ◽  
Daniel C Perry ◽  
Andreas Roposch ◽  
Nicholas Nicolaou ◽  
Stephen Cooke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Lower Limbs ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectiveTo identify and prioritise research questions concerning the elective surgical management of children with conditions affecting the lower limb by engaging patients, carers and healthcare professionals.DesignA modified nominal group technique.SettingUK.Participants388 individuals (29 patients, 155 parents/carers, 204 healthcare professionals) were recruited through hospital clinics, patient charities and professional organisations and participated in the initial prioritisation survey; 234 individuals took part in the interim prioritisation survey. 33 individuals (3 patients, 9 parents/carers, 11 healthcare professionals, 7 individuals representing the project’s steering group and 3 James Lind Alliance (JLA) facilitators) attended the final face-to-face workshop to rank the top 10 research priorities.InterventionsSurveys were distributed using various media resources such as newsletters, internet messaging boards and the ‘Paediatric Lower Limb Surgery Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) website. Printed copies of the questionnaire were also made available to families in outpatient clinics.Outcome measuresSurvey results, top 10 and top 26 priority rankingsResultsThe process took 18 months to complete (July 2017–January 2019); 388 people generated 1023 questions; a total of 801 research questions were classified as true uncertainties. Following the JLA methodology, 75 uncertainties were developed from the initial 801 questions. Twenty six of those were selected through a second survey and were taken to the final face-to-face workshop where the top 10 research priorities were selected. The top10 priorities included questions on cerebral palsy, common hip conditions (ie, Perthes’ disease and developmental dysplasia of the hip) as well as rehabilitation techniques and methods to improve shared decision-making between clinicians and patients/families.ConclusionsThis is the first JLA PSP in children’s orthopaedic surgery, a particularly under-researched and underfunded area. We have identified important research topics which will guide researchers and funders and direct their efforts in future research.

scholarly journals Top research priorities for preterm birth: results of a prioritisation partnership between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandy Oliver ◽  
Seilin Uhm ◽  
Lelia Duley ◽  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Anna L. David ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Preterm Birth ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Paper Survey ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Development Methods

Abstract Background We report a process to identify and prioritise research questions in preterm birth that are most important to people affected by preterm birth and healthcare practitioners in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Methods Using consensus development methods established by the James Lind Alliance, unanswered research questions were identified using an online survey, a paper survey distributed in NHS preterm birth clinics and neonatal units, and through searching published systematic reviews and guidelines. Prioritisation of these questions was by online voting, with paper copies at the same NHS clinics and units, followed by a decision-making workshop of people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. Results Overall 26 organisations participated. Three hundred and eighty six people responded to the survey, and 636 systematic reviews and 12 clinical guidelines were inspected for research recommendations. From this, a list of 122 uncertainties about the effects of treatment was collated: 70 from the survey, 28 from systematic reviews, and 24 from guidelines. After removing 18 duplicates, the 104 remaining questions went to a public online vote on the top 10. Five hundred and seven people voted; 231 (45%) people affected by preterm birth, 216 (43%) health professionals, and 55 (11%) affected by preterm birth who were also a health professional. Although the top priority was the same for all types of voter, there was variation in how other questions were ranked. Following review by the Steering Group, the top 30 questions were then taken to the prioritisation workshop. A list of top 15 questions was agreed, but with some clear differences in priorities between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. Conclusions These research questions prioritised by a partnership process between service users and healthcare professionals should inform the decisions of those who plan to fund research. Priorities of people affected by preterm birth were sometimes different from those of healthcare professionals, and future priority setting partnerships should consider reporting these separately, as well as in total.

scholarly journals Research priorities for the management of broken bones of the upper limb in people over 50: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e030028 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren J Sheehan ◽  
Mark A Williams ◽  
Zoe Paskins ◽  
Matthew L Costa ◽  
Miguel Antonio Fernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Upper Limb ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Broken Bones ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectiveTo determine research priorities for the management of broken bones of the upper limb in people over 50, which represent the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/settingA national (UK) research priority setting partnership.ParticipantsPeople aged 50 and over who have experienced a fracture of the upper limb, carers involved in their care, family and friends of patients, healthcare professionals involved in the treatment of these patients.MethodsUsing a multiphase methodology in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 15 months (September 2017 to December 2018), a national scoping survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties. These were amalgamated into a smaller number of research questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 25 questions was taken to a multi-stakeholder workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.ResultsThere were 1898 original uncertainties submitted by 328 respondents to the first survey. These original uncertainties were refined into 51 research questions of which 50 were judged to be true uncertainties following a review of the research evidence. There were 209 respondents to the second (interim prioritisation) survey. The top 10 priorities encompass a broad range of uncertainties in management and rehabilitation of upper limb fractures.ConclusionsThe top 10 UK research priorities highlight uncertainties in how we assess outcomes, provide information, achieve pain control, rationalise surgical intervention, optimise rehabilitation and provide psychological support. The breadth of these research areas highlights the value of this methodology. This work should help to steer research in this area for the next 5–10 years and the challenge for researchers now is to refine and deliver answers to these research priorities.

scholarly journals Research priorities in advanced heart failure: James Lind alliance priority setting partnership

Open Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e001258
Author(s):  
Clare J Taylor ◽  
Alyson L Huntley ◽  
John Burden ◽  
Amy Gadoud ◽  
Toto Gronlund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Advanced Heart Failure ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectiveTo determine research priorities in advanced heart failure (HF) for patients, carers and healthcare professionals.MethodsPriority setting partnership using the systematic James Lind Alliance method for ranking and setting research priorities. An initial open survey of patients, carers and healthcare professionals identified respondents’ questions, which were categorised to produce a list of summary research questions; questions already answered in existing literature were removed. In a second survey of patients, carers and healthcare professionals, respondents ranked the summary research questions in order of priority. The top 25 unanswered research priorities were then considered at a face-to-face workshop using nominal group technique to agree on a ‘top 10’.Results192 respondents submitted 489 responses each containing one or more research uncertainty. Out-of-scope questions (35) were removed, and collating the responses produced 80 summary questions. Questions already answered in the literature (15) were removed. In the second survey, 65 questions were ranked by 128 respondents. The top 10 priorities were developed at a consensus meeting of stakeholders and included a focus on quality of life, psychological support, the impact on carers, role of the charity sector and managing prognostic uncertainty. Ranked priorities by physicians and patients were remarkably divergent.ConclusionsEngaging stakeholders in setting research priorities led to a novel set of research questions that might not have otherwise been considered. These priorities can be used by researchers and funders to direct future research towards the areas which matter most to people living with advanced HF.

scholarly journals Identifying research priorities in cardiac surgery: a report from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in adult heart surgery

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e038001
Author(s):  
Florence Y Lai ◽  
Riccardo G Abbasciano ◽  
Bethany Tabberer ◽  
Tracy Kumar ◽  
Gavin J Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Heart Surgery ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Initial Survey ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectiveTo identify research priorities that address the needs of people affected by cardiac surgery and those who support and care for them.DesignJames Lind Alliance (JLA) process—two surveys and a consensus workshop guided by an independent JLA adviser.SettingThe UK with international participation.ParticipantsThree stakeholder groups—heart surgery patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in care delivery.MethodsThe initial survey was set to collect potential research questions in cardiac surgery as identified by stakeholders. Submitted questions were summarised into indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to verify that these indicative questions had not been answered. In the second survey, stakeholders then voted for their top 10 from the list of unanswered questions. The top voted questions were taken forward for final ranking in a workshop.ResultsIn the initial survey, 629 respondents (28% patients/carers, 62% healthcare professionals) submitted 1082 potential questions. Of these, 797 in-scope questions were summarised into 49 indicative questions and of which 45 had not been answered by existing research. In the second survey, 492 respondents (43% patients/carers, 49% healthcare professionals) cast their votes with the top 12 from each of the three stakeholder groups totalling 21 questions advancing to the final priority setting workshop. The workshop attended by 25 delegates (10 patients/carers and 15 healthcare professionals) agreed on the top 10 research questions including long-term outcomes (quality of life), and aspects from preoperative personalised care (prehabilitation, frailty, comorbidities), intraoperative management (minimally invasive techniques), to prevention and management of postoperative complications (organ injury, atrial fibrillation, infection).ConclusionsThis Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) identified the priorities and unmet needs of patients and clinicians in cardiac surgery. The next step is to disseminate and implement the PSP results to ensure that these priorities shape future research and improve clinical services.

Top ten research priorities for problematic knee arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 102-B (9) ◽  
pp. 1176-1182
Author(s):  
John A. Mathews ◽  
Nicholas S. Kalson ◽  
Polly M. Tarrant ◽  
Andrew D. Toms ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Persistent Symptoms ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Independent Information ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Initial Survey ◽  
The Uk

Aims The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty. Methods The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting. Results A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination. Conclusions The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document