Dataset Information

Identifying integrated health services and social care research priorities in kidney disease in Wales: research prioritisation exercise.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify the shared research priorities of patients, caregivers and multidisciplinary renal health and social care professionals across Wales for integrated renal health and social care in Wales.

Design

Research priority setting exercise adapted from the James Lind Alliance national priority setting partnership framework in UK healthcare.

Setting

Two workshops: one in North Wales with patients, caregivers and multidisciplinary renal health and social care professionals and one in South Wales with the Welsh Renal Clinical Network (commissioners of renal services in Wales). Additional input provided from stakeholders via email correspondence and face to face communications.

Participants

Academics n=14, patients n=16, family/carers n=6, multidisciplinary renal healthcare professionals n=40, local authority councils n=3, renal charities n=6 wider third sector organisations n=8, renal industries n=4, Welsh government social care n=3, renal service commissioners n=8.

Results

38 research priority questions grouped into 10 themes were agreed. The themes included: (1) integrating health and social care, (2) education, (3) acute kidney injury, (4) chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease, (5) transplantation, (6) dialysis, (7) personalised medicines, (8) cross-cutting priorities, (9) specific social contexts and (10) transitional services and children. Research questions were broad and covered a range of health and social care topics. Patient and professional perspectives broadly overlapped. Research priority setting activities revealed gaps in knowledge in overall service provision and potential areas for service improvement.

Conclusions

Mapping priorities in health services and social care highlighted the research needed to support renal health services delivery and commissioning in Wales.

SUBMITTER: Mc Laughlin L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7467555 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives:Medication errors continue to contribute substantially to global morbidity and mortality. In the context of the recent launch of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm, we sought to establish agreement on research priorities for medication safety. Methods:We undertook a consensus prioritisation exercise using an approach developed by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. Based on a combination of productivity and citations, we identified leading researchers in patient and medication safety and invited them to participate. We also extended the invitation to a further pool of experts from the WHO Global Patient Safety Network. All experts independently generated research ideas, which they then independently scored based on the criteria of: answerability, effectiveness, innovativeness, implementation, burden reduction and equity. An overall Research Priority Score and Average Expert Agreement were calculated for each research question. Findings:131 experts submitted 333 research ideas, and 42 experts then scored the proposed research questions. The top prioritised research areas were: (1) deploying and scaling technology to enhance medication safety; (2) developing guidelines and standard operating procedures for high-risk patients, medications and contexts; (3) score-based approaches to predicting high-risk patients and situations; (4) interventions to increase patient medication literacy; (5) focused training courses for health professionals; and (6) universally applicable pictograms to avoid medication-related harm. Whilst there was a focus on promoting patient education and involvement across resource settings, priorities identified in high-resource settings centred on the optimisation of existing systems through technology. In low- and middle-resource settings, priorities focused on identifying systemic issues contributing to high-risk situations. Conclusions:WHO now plans to work with global, regional and national research funding agencies to catalyse the investment needed to enable teams to pursue these research priorities in medication safety across high-, middle- and low-resource country settings.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an established body of evidence linking systems of social protection to health systems and health outcomes. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide further emphasis on this linkage as necessary to achieving health and non-health goals. Existing literature on social protection and health has focused primarily on cash transfers. We sought to identify potential research priorities concerning social protection and health in low and middle-income countries, from multiple perspectives.MethodsPriority research questions were identified through two sources: 1) research reviews on social protection interventions and health, 2) interviews with 54 policy makers from Ministries of Health, multi-lateral or bilateral organizations, and NGOs. Data was collated and summarized using a framework analysis approach. The final refining and ranking of the questions was completed by researchers from around the globe through an online platform.ResultsThe overview of reviews identified 5 main categories of social protection interventions: cash transfers; financial incentives and other demand side financing interventions; food aid and nutritional interventions; parental leave; and livelihood/social welfare interventions. Policy-makers focused on the implementation and practice of social protection and health, how social protection programs could be integrated with other sectors, and how they should be monitored/evaluated. A collated list resulted in 31 priority research questions. Scale and sustainability of social protection programs ranked highest. The top 10 research questions focused heavily on design, implementation, and context, with a range of interventions that included cash transfers, social insurance, and labor market interventions.ConclusionsThere is potentially a rich field of enquiry into the linkages between health systems and social protection programs, but research within this field has focused on a few relatively narrowly defined areas. The SDGs provide an impetus to the expansion of research of this nature, with priority setting exercises such as this helping to align funder investment with researcher effort and policy-maker evidence needs.

Project description:To systematically identify global research gaps and resource priorities for integrated community case management (iCCM).An iCCM Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) Advisory Group, in collaboration with the Community Case Management Operational Research Group (CCM ORG) identified experts to participate in a CHNRI research priority setting exercise. These experts generated and systematically ranked research questions for iCCM. Research questions were ranked using a "Research Priority Score" (RPS) and the "Average Expert Agreement" (AEA) was calculated for every question. Our groups of experts were comprised of both individuals working in Ministries of Health or Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and individuals working in high-income countries (HICs) in academia or NGO headquarters. A Spearman's Rho was calculated to determine the correlation between the two groups' research questions' ranks.The overall RPS ranged from 64.58 to 89.31, with a median score of 81.43. AEA scores ranged from 0.54 to 0.86. Research questions involving increasing the uptake of iCCM services, research questions concerning the motivation, retention, training and supervision of Community Health Workers (CHWs) and concerning adding additional responsibilities including counselling for infant and young child feeding (IYCF) and treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) ranked highly. There was weak to moderate, statistically significant, correlation between scores by representatives of high-income countries and those working in-country or regionally (Spearman's ??=?0.35034, P?<?0.01).Operational research to determine optimal training, supervision and modes of motivation and retention for the CHW is vital for improving iCCM, globally, as is research to motivate caregivers to take advantage of iCCM services. Experts working in-country or regionally in LMICs prioritized different research questions than those working in organization headquarters in HICs. Further exploration is needed to determine the nature of this divergence.

Project description:BackgroundThe failure to retain patients or collect primary-outcome data is a common challenge for trials and reduces the statistical power and potentially introduces bias into the analysis. Identifying strategies to minimise missing data was the second highest methodological research priority in a Delphi survey of the Directors of UK Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and is important to minimise waste in research. Our aim was to assess the current retention practices within the UK and priorities for future research to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to reduce attrition.MethodsSeventy-five chief investigators of NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials starting between 2009 and 2012 were surveyed to elicit their awareness about causes of missing data within their trial and recommended practices for improving retention. Forty-seven CTUs registered within the UKCRC network were surveyed separately to identify approaches and strategies being used to mitigate missing data across trials. Responses from the current practice surveys were used to inform a subsequent two-round Delphi survey with registered CTUs. A consensus list of retention research strategies was produced and ranked by priority.ResultsFifty out of seventy-five (67%) chief investigators and 33/47 (70%) registered CTUs completed the current practice surveys. Seventy-eight percent of trialists were aware of retention challenges and implemented strategies at trial design. Patient-initiated withdrawal was the most common cause of missing data. Registered CTUs routinely used newsletters, timeline of participant visits, and telephone reminders to mitigate missing data. Whilst 36 out of 59 strategies presented had been formally or informally evaluated, some frequently used strategies, such as site initiation training, have had no research to inform practice. Thirty-five registered CTUs (74%) participated in the Delphi survey. Research into the effectiveness of site initiation training, frequency of patient contact during a trial, the use of routinely collected data, the frequency and timing of reminders, triggered site training and the time needed to complete questionnaires was deemed critical. Research into the effectiveness of Christmas cards for site staff was not of critical importance.ConclusionThe surveys of current practices demonstrates that a variety of strategies are being used to mitigate missing data but with little evidence to support their use. Six retention strategies were deemed critically important within the Delphi survey and should be a primary focus of future retention research.

Project description:IntroductionFood hypersensitivity (FHS), including food allergy, coeliac disease and food intolerance, is a major public health issue. The Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent UK Government department working to protect public health and consumers' wider interests in food, sought to identify research priorities in the area of FHS.MethodsA priority setting exercise was undertaken, using a methodology adapted from the James Lind Alliance-the first such exercise with respect to food hypersensitivity. A UK-wide public consultation was held to identify unanswered research questions. After excluding diagnostics, desensitization treatment and other questions which were out of scope for FSA or where FSA was already commissioning research, 15 indicative questions were identified and prioritized by a range of stakeholders, representing food businesses, patient groups, health care and academia, local authorities and the FSA.Results295 responses were received during the public consultation, which were categorized into 70 sub-questions and used to define 15 key evidence uncertainties ('indicative questions') for prioritization. Using the JLA prioritization framework, this resulted in 10 priority uncertainties in evidence, from which 16 research questions were developed. These could be summarized under the following 5 themes: communication of allergens both within the food supply chain and then to the end consumer (ensuring trust in allergen communication); the impact of socio-economic factors on consumers with FHS; drivers of severe reactions; mechanism(s) underlying loss of tolerance in FHS; and the risks posed by novel allergens/processing.DiscussionIn this first research prioritization exercise for food allergy and FHS, key priorities identified to protect the food-allergic public were strategies to help allergic consumers to make confident food choices, prevention of FHS and increasing understanding of socio-economic impacts. Diagnosis and treatment of FHS was not considered in this prioritization.

Project description:Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research may contribute to obtaining answers that clinicians perceive they need and may minimize research that could be considered wasteful. Our objective was to identify evidence gaps and set priorities for new systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for managing diabetic retinopathy (DR), including diabetic macular edema (DME).Cross-sectional study.Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) investigators.We provided recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2012 Preferred Practice Patterns for Diabetic Retinopathy as 91 answerable clinical research questions about intervention effectiveness to 410 DRCR.net investigators to rate each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round Delphi survey and to suggest additional questions. We considered questions as high priority if at least 75% of respondents to both rounds assigned an importance rating of 5 or more in round 2. We also extracted outcome measures relevant to DR and asked respondents to identify those that must be measured in all studies. We mapped Cochrane reviews published up to March 2016 to high-priority clinical research questions.Ranking of importance of each clinical question.Thirty-two individuals completed rounds 1 and 2 and suggested 15 questions. Among the final list of 106 clinical research questions, 22 questions met our definition of high priority: 9 of 22 concerned the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy, and 13 of 22 focused on how often patients should be followed up (re-examination) and treatment effectiveness in patients with specific characteristics (e.g., DME). Outcomes that 75% or more of respondents marked as "must be measured in all studies" included visual acuity and visual loss, death of participants, and intraocular pressure. Only 1 prioritized question was associated with conclusive evidence from a Cochrane systematic review.A limited response rate among DRCR.net members identified 22 comparative effectiveness research questions as high priority for the management of DR, including DME, but few were associated with Cochrane reviews. These results support the need of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials to address evidence gaps.