Search

Objective The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/setting An international research priority-setting partnership.Participants People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb.Methods A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021–October 2023). An international 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 international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.Results A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 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.Conclusions The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.

Objectives To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.Design James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.Setting UK health service and community.Methods A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.Participants Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population.Results Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children’s surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was ‘can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?’Conclusions We have identified research priorities for children’s cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

Objectives To agree on the ‘top 10’ research priorities for environmentally sustainable perioperative practice.Design Surveys and literature review; final consensus workshop using a nominal group technique.Setting UK-based setting.Participants Healthcare professionals, patients, carers and the public.Outcome measures Initial survey—suggested research questions; interim survey—shortlist of ‘indicative’ questions (the 20 most frequently nominated by patients, carers and the public, and healthcare professionals); final workshop—ranked research priorities.Results Initial survey—1926 suggestions by 296 respondents, refined into 60 indicative questions. Interim survey—325 respondents. Final workshop—21 participants agreed the ‘top 10’: (1) How can more sustainable reusable equipment safely be used during and around the time of an operation? (2) How can healthcare organisations more sustainably procure (obtain) medicines, equipment and items used during and around the time of an operation? (3) How can healthcare professionals who deliver care during and around the time of an operation be encouraged to adopt sustainable actions in practice? (4) Can more efficient use of operating theatres and associated practices reduce the environmental impact of operations? (5) How can the amount of waste generated during and around the time of an operation be minimised? (6) How do we measure and compare the short-term and long-term environmental impacts of surgical and non-surgical treatments for the same condition? (7) What is the environmental impact of different anaesthetic techniques (eg, different types of general, regional and local anaesthesia) used for the same operation? (8) How should the environmental impact of an operation be weighed against its clinical outcomes and financial costs? (9) How can environmental sustainability be incorporated into the organisational management of operating theatres? (10) What are the most sustainable forms of effective infection prevention and control used around the time of an operation (eg, personal protective equipment, drapes, clean air ventilation)?Conclusions A broad range of ‘end-users’ have identified research priorities for sustainable perioperative care.

Objective To undertake a UK-based James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership for elbow conditions and be representative of the views of patients, carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs).Setting This was a national collaborative study organised through the British Elbow and Shoulder Society.Participants Adult patients, carers and HCPs who have managed or experienced elbow conditions, their carers and HCPs in the UK involved in managing of elbow conditions.Methods The rigorous JLA priority setting methodology was followed. Electronic and paper scoping surveys were distributed to identify potential research priority questions (RPQs). Initial responses were reviewed and a literature search was performed to cross-check categorised questions. Those questions already sufficiently answered were excluded and the remaining questions were ranked in a second survey according to priority for future elbow conditions research. Using the JLA methodology, responses from HCP and patients were combined to create a list of the top 18 questions. These were further reviewed in a dedicated multistakeholder workshop where the top 10 RPQs were agreed by consensus.Results The process was completed over 24 months. The initial survey resulted in 467 questions from 165 respondents (73% HCPs and 27% patients/carers). These questions were reviewed and combined into 46 summary topics comprising: tendinopathy, distal biceps pathology, arthritis, stiffness, trauma, arthroplasty and cubital tunnel syndrome. The second (interim prioritisation) survey had 250 respondents (72% HCP and 28% patients/carers). The top 18 ranked questions from this survey were taken to the final workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 RPQs.Conclusions The top 10 RPQs highlight areas of importance that currently lack sufficient evidence to guide diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of elbow conditions. This collaborative process will guide researchers and funders regarding the topics that should receive most future attention and benefit patients and HCPs.

Objectives This study establishes research priorities for medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES), also known as persistent physical symptoms or medically unexplained symptoms, from the perspective of patients, caregivers and clinicians, in a priority setting partnership (PSP) following the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach. Research into such symptoms in general has been poorly funded over the years and so far has been primarily researcher-led with minimal input from patients, caregivers and clinicians; and sometimes has been controversial.Design JLA PSP method. The PSP termed these symptoms MNYES.Methods The study was conducted according to the JLA’s detailed methodology for conducting priority setting exercises. It involved five key stages: defining the appropriate term for the conditions under study by the PSP Steering Group; gathering questions on MNYES from patients, caregivers and clinicians in a publicly accessible survey; checking these research questions against existing evidence; interim prioritisation in a second survey; and a final multi-stakeholder consensus meeting to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions using the modified nominal group methodology.Results Over 700 responses from UK patients, caregivers and clinicians were identified in the two surveys and charities contributed from a broad range of medical specialties and primary care. The final top 10 unanswered research questions cover, among others: treatment strategies, personalisation of treatment, collaborative care pathways, training for clinicians and outcomes that matter to patients.Interpretation The top 10 unanswered research questions are expected to generate much needed, relevant and impactful research into MNYES.

Objective To determine research priorities for the management of complex fractures, which represent the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/setting A national (UK) research priority setting partnership.Participants People 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.Methods A 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.Results A 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.Conclusions The 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.