Consensus exercise identifying priorities for research in the field of general surgery of childhood in the UK.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hall NJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7966780 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The Vascular Research Collaborative was established to develop a national research strategy for patients with vascular disease in the UK. This project aimed to establish national research priorities in this patient group. A modified Delphi approach, an established method for reaching a consensus opinion among a group of experts in a particular field, was used to survey national multidisciplinary vascular clinical specialists. Two rounds of online surveys were conducted involving the membership of the Vascular Society, Society of Vascular Nurses, Society for Vascular Technology, and the Rouleaux Club (vascular surgical trainees). The first round invited any suggestions for vascular research topics. A steering group then collated and rationalized the suggestions, categorizing them by consensus into pathological topics and research categories, and amalgamating the various questions relating to the same fundamental issue into a single question. The second round involved recirculating these questions to the same participants for priority scoring. Round 1 resulted in 1231 suggested research questions from 481 respondents. Steering group collation and rationalization resulted in 83 questions for ranking in round 2. The second round resulted in a hierarchical list of vascular research priorities. The highest scoring priorities addressed topics related to critical lower-limb ischaemia, diabetic foot disease, amputation, wound healing, carotid plaque morphology, and service organization/delivery. It is anticipated that these results will drive the UK national vascular research agenda for the next 5-10 years. It will facilitate focused development and funding of new research projects in current clinical areas of unmet need where potential impact is greatest.
| S-EPMC7944495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The growth of research in the field of exercise oncology has resulted in a large evidence base for the role of physical activity in preventing and managing cancer outcomes. Nonetheless, there remain many unanswered questions across the multidisciplinary field. This study aimed to determine the priority research questions within exercise oncology using a systematic consensus method. Forty-seven exercise oncology experts engaged in the five-step process of the Nominal Group Technique to generate a list of research questions in small groups and rank the 10 most important. One hundred questions resulted from the process and fifteen received total scores (sum of ranks) of at least 50 from a maximum score of 470. The highest ranked question (score of 125) related to the identification of functional markers of recovery. The next five questions concerned minimum exercise parameters, health professional education, translation of behavioural interventions, effects of exercise on the tumour microenvironment and development of in vitro models to study the impact of exercise on cancer cell growth and metastasis. The study has demonstrated the importance of future research across all disciplinary areas of exercise oncology and identified the priority questions to which resources might be directed.
| S-EPMC7066012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeA James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership was developed to identify research priorities in breast cancer surgery from individuals with lived experience, at high genetic risk of breast cancer, and healthcare professionals (HCPs).Methods'Uncertainties' were collected using an online survey. Following an evidence check and development of summary questions, an interim survey asked participants to rank their top 10 research priorities from the question list. Top-ranked questions from patient/carer, high-risk and professional groups were carried forward for discussion to a final online prioritisation workshop.Results260 participants (101 patients/carers, 156 HCPs) submitted 940 uncertainties via the initial survey. These were analysed thematically into 128 summary questions in six topic areas. Following evidence checking, 59 questions were included in the interim survey which was completed by 572 respondents. Marked differences were seen in questions prioritised by patients/carers, HCPs and women at high-risk. The top eight priorities in patient/carer and professional groups and top two priorities for high-risk women were carried forward to the online workshop at which 22 participants discussed and agreed the final top 10. Key themes included de-escalation of breast and axillary surgery, factors impacting the development/detection of locoregional recurrence and optimal provision of support for informed treatment decision-making.ConclusionThe top 10 research priorities in breast cancer surgery have been agreed. However, the observed differences in research priorities identified by patients and professional groups were not anticipated. Top priorities from both groups should inform future UK breast cancer surgical research, to ensure that it addresses questions that are important to breast cancer community as a whole.
| S-EPMC9628302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNorth American pediatric rheumatologists have created an investigator-initiated research network (the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance - CARRA) to facilitate multi-centre studies. One of the first projects undertaken by this network was to define, by consensus, research priorities for the group, and if possible a first group-sponsored clinical trial in which all members could participate.MethodsWe determined consensus using the Delphi approach. This approach has been used extensively in health research to reach consensus in large groups. It uses several successive iterations of surveys eliciting ideas and opinions from specialists in the field. Three surveys were designed based on this method and were distributed to members of CARRA to elicit and rank-order research priorities.ResultsA response rate of 87.6% was achieved in the final survey. The most highly ranked research suggestion was to study infliximab treatment of uveitis unresponsive to methotrexate. Other highly ranked suggestions were to study i) the treatment of systemic arthritis with anakinra and ii) the treatment of pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus with mycophenolate mofetil.ConclusionThe Delphi approach was an effective and practical method to define research priorities in this group. Ongoing discussion and cooperation among pediatric rheumatologists in CARRA and others world-wide will help in developing further research priorities and to facilitate the execution of clinical trials in the future.
| S-EPMC2330140 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9291826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UNLABELLED:An international consensus process identified the following research priorities in osteoporosis and exercise: study of exercise in high-risk cohorts, evaluation of multimodal interventions, research examining translation into practice and a goal to examine fracture outcomes. INTRODUCTION:To identify future research priorities related to exercise for people with osteoporosis with and without osteoporotic spine fracture via international consensus. METHODS:An international expert panel and representatives from Osteoporosis Canada led the process and identified opinion leaders or stakeholders to contribute. A focus group of four patient advocates identified quality of life, mobility, activities of daily living, falls, bone mineral density, and harms as outcomes important for decision-making. Seventy-five individuals were invited to participate in an online survey asking respondents to define future research priorities in the area of osteoporosis and exercise; the response rate was 57%. Fifty-five individuals from seven countries were invited to a half-day consensus meeting; 60% of invitees attended. The results of the online survey, knowledge synthesis activities, and results of the focus group were presented. Nominal group technique was used to come to consensus on research priorities. RESULTS:Research priorities included the study of exercise in high-risk cohorts (e.g., ? 65 years, low BMD, moderate/high risk of fracture, history of osteoporotic vertebral fractures, hyperkyphotic posture, functional impairments, or sedentary), the evaluation of multimodal interventions, research examining translation into practice, and a goal to examine fracture outcomes. The standardization of outcomes or protocols that could be evolved into large multicentre trials was discussed. CONCLUSIONS:The research priorities identified as part of the Too Fit To Fracture initiative can be used to inform the development of multicentre collaborations to evaluate and implement strategies for engaging individuals with osteoporosis in a safe and effective exercise.
| S-EPMC5094885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSerious illness is characterised by uncertainty, particularly in older age groups. Uncertainty may be experienced by patients, family carers, and health professionals about a broad variety of issues. There are many evidence gaps regarding the experience and management of uncertainty.AimWe aimed to identify priority research areas concerning uncertainty in serious illness, to ensure that future research better meets the needs of those affected by uncertainty and reduce research inefficiencies.MethodsRapid prioritisation workshop comprising five focus groups to identify research areas, followed by a ranking exercise to prioritise them. Participants were healthcare professionals caring for those with serious illnesses including geriatrics, palliative care, intensive care; researchers; patient/carer representatives, and policymakers. Descriptive analysis of ranking data and qualitative framework analysis of focus group transcripts was undertaken.ResultsThirty-four participants took part; 67% female, mean age 47 (range 33-67). The highest priority was communication of uncertainty, ranked first by 15 participants (overall ranking score 1.59/3). Subsequent priorities were: 2) How to cope with uncertainty; 3) healthcare professional education/training; 4) Optimising clinical approaches to uncertainty; and 5) exploring in-depth experiences of uncertainty. Research questions regarding optimal management of uncertainty were given higher priority than questions about experiences of uncertainty and its impact.ConclusionsThese co-produced, clinically-focused research priorities map out key evidence gaps concerning uncertainty in serious illness. Managing uncertainty is the most pressing issue, and researchers should prioritise how to optimally manage uncertainty in order to reduce distress, unlock decision paralysis and improve illness and care experience.
| S-EPMC10903860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo 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.DesignResearch priority setting exercise adapted from the James Lind Alliance national priority setting partnership framework in UK healthcare.SettingTwo 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.ParticipantsAcademics 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.Results38 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.ConclusionsMapping priorities in health services and social care highlighted the research needed to support renal health services delivery and commissioning in Wales.
| S-EPMC7467555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to identify stakeholder views about national priorities for improvement science and build agreement for action in a national improvement and implementation research network in the USA. This was accomplished using three stages of identification and consensus. (1) Topics were identified through a multipronged environmental scan of the literature and initiatives. (2) Based on this scan, a survey was developed, and stakeholders (n = 2,777) were invited to rate the resulting 33-topic, 9-category list, via an online survey. Data from 560 respondents (20% response) were analyzed. (3) An expert panel used survey results to further refine the research priorities through a Rand Delphi process. Priorities identified were within four categories: care coordination and transitions, high-performing clinical systems and microsystems improvement approaches, implementation of evidence-based improvements and best practices, and culture of quality and safety. The priorities identified were adopted by the improvement science research network as the research agenda to guide strategy. The process and conclusions may be of value to quality improvement research funding agencies, governments, and research units seeking to concentrate their resources on improvement topics where research is capable of yielding timely and actionable answers as well as contributing to the knowledge base for improvement.
| S-EPMC3759273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify the top 10 unanswered research questions for primary care patient safety research. DESIGN:A modified nominal group technique. SETTING:UK. PARTICIPANTS:Anyone with experience of primary care including: patients, carers and healthcare professionals. 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals submitted questions. MAIN OUTCOMES:A top 10, and top 30, future research questions for primary care patient safety. RESULTS:443 research questions were submitted by 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals, through a national survey. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 173 questions were collated into themes. The themes were largely focused on communication, team and system working, interfaces across primary and secondary care, medication, self-management support and technology. The questions were then prioritised through a national survey, the top 30 questions were taken forward to the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 research questions focused on the most vulnerable in society, holistic whole-person care, safer communication and coordination between care providers, work intensity, continuity of care, suicide risk, complex care at home and confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS:This study was the first national prioritisation exercise to identify patient and healthcare professional priorities for primary care patient safety research. The research priorities identified a range of important gaps in the existing evidence to inform everyday practice to address primary care patient safety.
| S-EPMC5855454 | biostudies-literature