Dataset Information

Setting research priorities for management and treatment of hyperhidrosis: the results of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hyperhidrosis is a common skin condition characterized by excessive sweating, which can negatively impact on quality of life. It is under-researched compared with other conditions of similar prevalence.

Aim

To generate a Top 10 list of research priorities for the treatment and management of hyperhidrosis, with equal input from people with hyperhidrosis and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

Methods

A priority setting partnership (PSP) was established and processes from the James Lind Alliance Handbook were followed. An online survey asked participants what questions they would like research to answer. These questions were grouped into 'indicative questions', which were ranked in a second survey of 45 indicative questions. The top 23 questions were then taken to a final workshop event attended by key stakeholders, and ranked to generate the Top 10 list of research priorities.

Results

There were 592 questions submitted by 268 respondents for the first survey. For the second survey, 286 participants ranked the indicative questions in order of priority. At the final workshop, the Top 10 list was generated. The top three priorities were: (i) Are there any safe and effective permanent solutions for hyperhidrosis? (ii) What is the most effective and safe oral treatment (drugs taken by mouth) for hyperhidrosis? and (iii) What are the most effective and safe ways to reduce sweating in particular areas of the body?

Conclusions

There are many unanswered research questions that both people with hyperhidrosis and HCPs would like to see answered. The results from this PSP will help to ensure future research funding can be directed to these areas of priority.

SUBMITTER: Dunford LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310725 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify research priorities for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy from individuals with lived experience and healthcare professionals. DESIGN:Prospective surveys and consensus meetings using principles outlined by the James Lind Alliance. SETTING:UK. METHODS:A steering group was established and 'uncertainties' were gathered using an online survey and literature search. An interim online survey ranked long-listed questions and the top 10 research questions were reached by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop. PARTICIPANTS:Women, partners, relatives and friends of those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension, researchers and healthcare professionals. RESULTS:The initial online survey was answered by 278 participants (180 women with lived experience, 9 partners/relatives/friends, 71 healthcare professionals and 18 researchers). Together with a literature search, this identified 764 questions which were refined into 50 summary questions. All summary questions were presented in an interim prioritisation survey that was answered by 155 participants (87 women with lived experience, 4 partners/relatives/friends, 49 healthcare professionals and 15 researchers). The top 25 highest ranked questions were considered by the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 uncertainties were identified by consensus and ranked as follows in order of priority: long-term consequences of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), short-term complications of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), screening tests for pre-eclampsia, prevention of long-term problems (for the woman and baby), causes of pregnancy hypertension, prevention of recurrent pregnancy hypertension, educational needs of healthcare professionals, diagnosis of pre-eclampsia, management of pregnancy hypertension, provision of support for women and families. CONCLUSIONS:Research priorities shared by those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension and healthcare professionals have been identified. Researchers should use these to inform the choice of future studies in this area.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine research priorities for the management of complex fractures, which represent the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/settingA national (UK) research priority setting partnership.ParticipantsPeople who have experienced a complex fracture, their carers and relatives, and relevant healthcare professionals and clinical academics involved in treating patients with complex fractures. The scope includes open fractures, fractures to joints broken into multiple pieces, multiple concomitant fractures and fractures involving the pelvis and acetabulum.MethodsA multiphase priority setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 21 months (October 2019 to June 2021). A national survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 18 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.ResultsA total of 532 uncertainties, submitted by 158 respondents (including 33 patients/carers) were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 58 unique indicative questions, of which all 58 were judged to be true uncertainties after review of the existing evidence. 136 people (including 56 patients/carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 18 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions.ConclusionsThe top 10 research priorities for complex fracture include questions regarding rehabilitation, complications, psychological support and return to life-roles. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research complex fractures over the coming decade.

Project description:ObjectivesTo conduct a UK-wide survey of young people who have experienced cancer, carers and professionals, to identify and prioritise research questions to inform decisions of research funders and support the case for research with this unique cancer population.DesignJames Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.SettingUK health service and community.MethodsA steering group oversaw the initiative and partner organisations were recruited. Unanswered questions were collected in an online survey. Evidence searching verified uncertainties. An interim survey was used to rank questions prior to a final prioritisation workshop.ParticipantsYoung people aged 13-24 years with a current or previous cancer diagnosis, their families, friends, partners and professionals who work with this population.ResultsTwo hundred and ninety-two respondents submitted 855 potential questions. Following a refining process and removal of 'out of scope' questions, 208 unique questions remained. Systematic evidence checking identified seven answered questions and 16 were the subject of ongoing studies. The interim survey was completed by 174 participants. The top 30 questions were prioritised at a workshop attended by 25 young people, parents and multidisciplinary professionals. The top three priorities are: (1) What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning and mental health during and after treatment? (2) What interventions, including self-care, can reduce or reverse adverse short-term and long-term effects of cancer treatment? (3) What are the best strategies to improve access to clinical trials? The remaining questions reflect the complete cancer pathway: new therapies, life after cancer, support, education/employment, relapse and end-of-life care.ConclusionsWe have identified shared research priorities for young people with cancer using a rigorous, person-centred approach involving stakeholders typically not involved in setting the research agenda. The breadth of priorities suggest future research should focus on holistic and psychosocial care delivery as well as traditional drug/biology research.