What are the respiratory health research priorities in Alberta, Canada? A stakeholder consultation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
The Respiratory Health Strategic Clinical Network (RHSCN) was launched to facilitate respiratory and sleep health through implementation of innovative, patient-centred, evidence-informed coordinated services in Alberta. In collaboration with project partners, the RHSCN aimed to determine the respiratory research priorities for Alberta.Design
The four phases of this research prioritisation project were (1) identifying research questions from stakeholders, (2) determining which research questions had been answered in existing literature, (3) prioritising unanswered questions and (4) finalising the priorities through an inperson workshop.Setting
The study occurred in Alberta, Canada over a 2-year period beginning in March 2017.Participants
A total of 448 patients, clinicians and other stakeholders consented to participate in the survey.Results
A total of 595 possible questions were submitted, with 343 unique questions identified. Of the questions, 94 were out of scope, 155 answered by existing literature and 10 were combined with others, while 83 were determined to be unanswered in the literature. Stakeholders were surveyed again to prioritise the remaining 83 questions and they were reviewed by the project's Steering Committee (clinicians and patients). At the inperson workshop, the Steering Committee identified 17 research topics as priority areas for respiratory and sleep research in Alberta.Conclusion
A stakeholder-led research prioritisation process identified optimal clinical management/follow-up, equitable access to services, and management of social, psychological and mental health issues related to respiratory/sleep health as priority research areas.
SUBMITTER: Sharpe H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9226868 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This paper is based on the report following the National Research Agenda Meeting on Mental Health, Justice, and Safety held in Montreal on November 19, 2014, which convened academics; health, social, and legal professionals; and people with lived experience of mental illness from across Canada. The goal was to identify research priorities addressing relevant knowledge gaps and research strategies that can translate into public policy action and improvements in evidence-based services. Participants identified key challenges: (1) inadequate identification and response to needs by civil mental health services and frontline law enforcement, (2) limited specialized resources in forensic and correctional settings, (3) fragmented care and gaps between systems, (4) limited resources for adequate community reintegration, and (5) poor knowledge transfer strategies as obstacles to evidence-based policies. Knowledge gaps were identified in epidemiology and risk reduction, frontline training and programs, forensic and correctional practices, organizations and institutions, knowledge transfer, and rehabilitation. Finally, participants identified potential sources of support to conduct real time research with regard to data collection and sharing. The findings represent a roadmap for how forensic mental health systems can best proceed to address current challenges through research and practice initiatives, drawing from lived, clinical and research experiences of a multidisciplinary group of experts.
| S-EPMC4673591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe increase in global wildland fire activity has accelerated the urgency to understand health risks associated with wildland fire suppression. The aim of this project was to identify occupational health research priorities for wildland firefighters and related personnel.DesignIn order to identify, rank and rate health research priorities, we followed a modified Delphi approach. Data collection involved a two-stage online survey followed by semi-structured interviews.SettingBritish Columbia, Canada.ParticipantsParticipants included any current or past wildland firefighter or individuals engaged in related roles. There were 132 respondents to the first survey. Responses to the first survey were analysed to produce 10 research topics which were ranked by 75 participants in the second survey (response rate: 84%).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the identification, ranking and level of agreement of research priorities through a two-round online survey. We contextualised these findings through deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews.ResultsThe most important research priorities identified were (% consensus): effects of smoke inhalation on respiratory health (89%), fatigue and sleep (80%), mental health (78%), stress (76%) and long-term risk of disease (67%). Interviews were completed with 14 individuals. Two main themes were developed from an inductive content analysis of interview transcripts: (1) understanding the dynamic risk environment; and (2) organisational fit of mitigation strategies.ConclusionsParticipants expressed a general concern with the unknown mental and physical health impacts of their jobs, including the long-term risk of morbidity and mortality. Future research must address knowledge gaps in our understanding of the health impacts of wildland fire and work to develop appropriate mitigation strategies while considering the needs of workers and unpredictable workplace environment.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework, https://osf.io/ugz4s/.
| S-EPMC8814744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite considerable investment in research priority setting within diverse fields of healthcare, little is known about the extent to which different stakeholder groups share research priorities. Conflicting priorities may jeopardize stakeholder engagement in research.To identify the research priorities of different stakeholder groups within mental health care and examine the extent and nature of agreement between them.Using a Delphi technique, we conducted parallel consultation processes within four different stakeholder groups. Each group process consisted of three rounds.The study was carried out within a mental health and learning disabilities trust in southern England. Participants were recruited from the following groups: mental health service users (34), informal carers (26), mental health practitioners (35) and service managers (23).There were striking differences between the four groups in respect of their ability and willingness to make priority decisions. These differences notwithstanding, there was considerable overlap in respect of their research interests. All groups identified and attached high importance to issues relating to the promotion of independence, self-esteem and recovery. The quality of in-patient care, the place of psychological therapies and the relationship between physical and mental health also emerged across the board.The confluence of four different stakeholder groups around a number of clear themes is highly encouraging, providing a framework within which to construct a research agenda and suggesting that mental health research can be built on solid partnerships.
| S-EPMC5060456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the incidence of influenza and noninfluenza respiratory viruses (NIRVs) pre-/post-implementation of public health measures aimed to decrease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission using population-based surveillance data. We hypothesized that such measures could reduce the burden of respiratory viruses (RVs) transmitting via the same routes.Patients and methodsAn interrupted time-series analysis of RV surveillance data in Alberta, Canada, from May 2017 to July 2020 was conducted. The burden of influenza and NIRVs before and after intervention initiation at week 11 was compared. The analysis was adjusted for seasonality, overdispersion, and autocorrelation.ResultsDuring the study period, an average of 708 and 4056 weekly respiratory multiplex molecular panels were conducted pre-/post-intervention, respectively. We found significant reductions in test positivity rates in the postintervention period for influenza (-94.3%; 95% CI, -93.8 to 97.4%; P<.001) and all NIRVs (-76.5%; 95% CI, -77.3 to -75.8%; P<.001) in the crude model, and -86.2% (95% CI, -91.5 to -77.4%: P<.001) and -75% (95% CI, -79.7 to -69.3%; P<.001), respectively, in the adjusted models. Subanalyses for individual viruses showed significant decreases in respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus, enterovirus/rhinovirus, and parainfluenza. For non-severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 human coronaviruses, the decline was not statistically significant after adjustment (-22.3%; 95% CI, -49.3 to +19%, P=.246).ConclusionThe implementation of COVID-19 public health measures likely resulted in reduced transmission of common RVs. Although drastic lockdowns are unlikely to be required given widespread COVID-19 vaccination, targeted implementation of such measures can lower RV disease burden. Studies to evaluate relative contributions of individual interventions are warranted.
| S-EPMC8450272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to partner with stakeholders to identify gaps in care for persons living with dementia and their family caregivers and from this list, identify priorities for dementia care research.MethodsUsing a community-engaged research approach, a Stakeholder Advisory Council (SAC) consisting of diverse membership including persons living with dementia and family caregivers was convened. Through our work with the SAC, along with input from the wider network through a symposium, webinars, and an online learning community, gaps in dementia care and a list of topics for dementia care research was generated. This list was reduced to 46 topics for dementia care research and sent to stakeholders (persons living with dementia, family caregivers, and health/social care professionals in dementia care) to be prioritized by rating each of the 46 topics as "Not so important," "Important," or "Very important." Priorities for dementia care were summarized by frequencies and proportions.ResultsA total of 186 participants completed the survey from August through October 2020, including 23 (12.4%) persons living with dementia, 101 (54.3%) family caregivers, and 62 (33.3%) health/social care professionals. Consistent across stakeholder groups was the focus on research on how best to support families following a diagnosis of dementia. Among persons living with dementia, research focused on support for continuing to live in their own homes was ranked as the highest priority, rated by 91.3% as "Very Important". High priority research areas for family caregivers included interventions to slow cognitive decline (76.3%) as well as non-pharmacological approaches to manage behavioral symptoms (74.7%). The highest priority research topics for health/social care professionals were focused on the diagnosis including benefits of an early diagnosis (71.4%), how best to deliver the diagnosis (70.9%), and supports needed following a diagnosis (78.6%).ConclusionsThis project draws on the strengths of its multi-stakeholder perspective to support patient-centered outcomes research. Findings are intended to inform those who conduct research and those who fund research about which research topics stakeholders believe are most important and thus have greatest potential to improve the quality of life among people living with dementia and their families.
| S-EPMC8218276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective public health emergency preparedness and response systems are important in mitigating the impact of all-hazards emergencies on population health. The evidence base for public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) is weak, however, and previous reviews have noted a substantial proportion of anecdotal event reports. To investigate the body of research excluding the anecdotal reports and better understand primary and analytical research for PHEP, a scoping review was conducted with two objectives: first, to develop a thematic map focused on primary research; and second, to use this map to inform and guide an understanding of knowledge gaps relevant to research and practice in PHEP.MethodsA scoping review was conducted based on established methodology. Multiple databases of indexed and grey literature were searched based on concepts of public health, emergency, emergency management/preparedness and evaluation/evidence. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied iteratively. Primary research studies that were evidence-based or evaluative in nature were included in the final group of selected studies. Thematic analysis was conducted for this group. Stakeholder consultation was undertaken for the purpose of validating themes and identifying knowledge gaps. To accomplish this, a purposive sample of researchers and practicing professionals in PHEP or closely related fields was asked to complete an online survey and participate in an in-person meeting. Final themes and knowledge gaps were synthesized after stakeholder consultation.ResultsDatabase searching yielded 3015 citations and article selection resulted in a final group of 58 articles. A list of ten themes from this group of articles was disseminated to stakeholders with the survey questions. Survey findings resulted in four cross-cutting themes and twelve stand-alone themes. Several key knowledge gaps were identified in the following themes: attitudes and beliefs; collaboration and system integration; communication; quality improvement and performance standards; and resilience. Resilience emerged as both a gap and a cross-cutting theme. Additional cross-cutting themes included equity, gender considerations, and high risk or at-risk populations.ConclusionsIn this scoping review of the literature enhanced by stakeholder consultation, key themes and knowledge gaps in the PHEP evidence base were identified which can be used to inform future practice-oriented research in PHEP.
| S-EPMC4415223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLarge numbers of translational breast cancer research topics have been completed or are underway, but they differ widely in their immediate and/or future importance to clinical management. We therefore conducted an international Web-based consultation of breast cancer professionals to identify the topics most widely considered to be of highest priority.MethodsPotential participants were contacted via two large e-mail databases and asked to register, at a Web site, the issues that they felt to be of highest priority. Four hundred nine questions were reduced by a steering committee to 70 unique issues, and registrants were asked to select the 6 questions they considered to be the most important.ResultsVotes were recorded from 420 voters (2,520 votes) from 48 countries, with 48% of voters coming from North America. Half of the voters identified themselves as clinicians, with the remainder being academics, research scientists, or pathologists. The highest priority was to identify molecular signatures to select patients who could be spared chemotherapy, which gained about 50% more votes than the second topic and was consistently voted top by voters in North America, Europe, and the rest of the world. Research scientists voted the determination of the role of stem cells in breast cancer development, progression, and treatment sensitivity as the most important issue, but this was considered the sixth priority for clinicians and fourth overall.ConclusionThis exercise may bring a greater focus of research resources onto issues voted as top priorities.
| S-EPMC2246180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEngaging youth throughout the research process improves research quality and outcomes. Youth advisory groups provide one way for youth to express their opinions on relevant issues.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify research- and health-related youth advisory groups ('groups') in Canada and understand the best practices of these groups.MethodsGoogle searches and supplementary methods were used to identify relevant groups in Canada. Group information was extracted from websites or through interviews with key informants.ResultsWe identified 40 groups. Groups were commonly part of a hospital/healthcare facility, nonprofit/health organization or research group. The majority focused on a specific content area, most commonly, mental health. Over half the groups advised on health services. Members' ages ranged from 9 to 35 years. The number of members ranged from 5 to 130. Interviews (n = 12) identified seven categories relating to group practices: (a) group purpose/objectives, (b) group development, (c) group operations, (d) group structure, (e) adult involvement, (f) membership and recruitment and (g) group access. Challenges and facilitators to the success of groups were described within the following themes: (a) retaining engagement, (b) creating a safe environment and (c) putting youth in positions of influence. Advice and recommendations were provided regarding the development of a new group.ConclusionThis study provides a comprehensive overview of research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada. This information can be used to identify groups that stakeholders could access as well as inform the development of a new group.Patient or public contributionYouth advisory group representatives were interviewed as part of the study.
| S-EPMC8483214 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a global public health problem with increased societal burden. Increased attention has focused toward patient and other stakeholder perspectives when determining future MSK pain research priorities, however infrastructure and capacity building within the community are needed for individuals and organizations to participate in patient-centered outcomes research. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe our collaborative experiences with several MSK pain stakeholders and processes to identify a top priority research topic.MethodsLunch meetings and formalized workshops were used to develop infrastructure for engaging patients and other stakeholders with early capacity building for partners to identify MSK pain research ideas based on their personal experiences. Additional capacity building and engagement through literature searching further prepared partners to contribute informed decisions about MSK pain research topics and subsequent selection of an important research question.ResultsSeveral key deliverables (e.g., Governance Document, Communication Plan) were developed and completed over the course of this project to provide partnership structure. Other key deliverables included a list of preliminary comparative effectiveness research ideas (n?=?8) and selection of shared decision making for MSK pain as the top priority research topic with patient partners identifying pain self-efficacy as an important outcome domain.ConclusionsOur patient partners provided the catalyst for identifying shared decision making as a high priority research topic based on a wide spectrum of stakeholder perspectives and unique experiences. Patient partners were primarily identified using a single rehabilitation health system and clinician partners were heavily weighted by physical therapists which may have introduced selection bias.
| S-EPMC7268422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSimultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation (SPK) has benefits for patients with kidney failure and type I diabetes mellitus, but is associated with greater perioperative risk compared with kidney-alone transplantation. Postoperative care settings for SPK recipients vary across Canada and may have implications for patient outcomes and hospital resource use.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes following SPK transplantation between patients receiving postoperative care in the intensive care unit (ICU) compared with the ward.DesignRetrospective cohort study using administrative health data.SettingIn Alberta, the 2 transplant centers (Calgary and Edmonton) have different protocols for routine postoperative care of SPK recipients. In Edmonton, SPK recipients are routinely transferred to the ICU, whereas in Calgary, SPK recipients are transferred to the ward.Patients129 adult SPK recipients (2002-2019).MeasurementsData from the Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database (CIHI-DAD) were used to identify SPK recipients (procedure codes) and the outcomes of inpatient mortality, length of initial hospital stay (LOS), and the occurrence of 16 different patient safety indicators (PSIs).MethodsWe followed SPK recipients from the admission date of their transplant hospitalization until the first of hospital discharge or death. Unadjusted quantile regression was used to determine differences in LOS, and age- and sex-adjusted marginal probabilities were used to determine differences in PSIs between centers.ResultsThere were no perioperative deaths and no major differences in the demographic characteristics between the centers. The majority of the SPK transplants were performed in Edmonton (n = 82, 64%). All SPK recipients in Edmonton were admitted to the ICU postoperatively, compared with only 11% in Calgary. There was no statistically significant difference in the LOS or probability of a PSI between the 2 centers (LOS for Edmonton vs Calgary:16 vs 13 days, P = .12; PSIs for Edmonton vs Calgary: 60%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50-0.71 vs 44%, 95% CI = 0.29-0.59, P = .08).LimitationsThis study was conducted using administrative data and is limited by variable availability. The small sample size limited precision of estimated differences between type of postoperative care.ConclusionsFollowing SPK transplantation, we found no difference in inpatient outcomes for recipients who received routine postoperative ICU care compared with ward care. Further research using larger data sets and interventional study designs is needed to better understand the implications of postoperative care settings on patient outcomes and health care resource utilization.
| S-EPMC8274095 | biostudies-literature