Understanding Clinician Trust in Health Care Organizations Should Be a Research Priority

To identify the silicosis research priorities of people living with silicosis, workers at risk of silicosis, their partners and caregivers, and of health professionals and researchers. Research priority setting exercise; modified James Lind Alliance framework for research priority setting partnerships, comprising an online survey followed by two forums in which thematic analysis and nominal group analysis were used to establish a list of research priorities. People with or at risk of silicosis, their partners or caregivers (survey, online forum) and health care professionals, researchers, health and safety professionals (survey, in-person forum), recruited 14 April - 19 December 2023. Research priorities in four pre-identified areas: prevention, screening and diagnosis, treatment, and living with and managing the impact of silicosis. A total of 164 survey respondents (105 medical or research professionals, 34 workers currently or formerly at risk of silicosis, eleven people with confirmed silicosis, and fourteen partners or caregivers) identified 47 key research topics. Fifty-three health care professionals and thirteen people with or at risk of silicosis and their caregivers then ranked the research topics and developed research questions at the two forums. The highest ranked research priorities were research into assessment and optimisation of the hierarchy of controls, compliance and regulation, establishing minimum standards and developing innovative screening methods, early diagnosis, development of effective treatments, identification of biomarkers for risk of progression, developing an optimal care model that includes mental health care, and estimating the economic impact of silicosis. Both participant groups agreed that research into workplace controls is important, as is improving education and awareness, compliance with preventive measures, and screening and diagnosis, including nationally consistent screening and diagnosis practices. The professional participants rated research into silicosis pathogenesis and biomarkers and technological considerations higher than workers and their carers, who focused more on the barriers for and attitudes of workers, specific treatments, and managing symptoms. Research into eliminating exposure to silica, early diagnosis of silicosis, preventing disease progression, and reducing the impact of disease were the top research priorities for people with professional or personal interests in silicosis. Our findings should guide research directions and inform policy development.

ObjectivePhysical healthcare has dominated the patient safety field; research in mental healthcare is not as extensive but findings from physical healthcare cannot be applied to mental healthcare because it delivers...

IntroductionEstablishing research priorities help to address knowledge gaps and exploit emerging opportunities to develop a clinical evidence base. The previous clinical engagement exercise to determine UK Defence Rehabilitation practitioner-based research...

Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Despite improvements in trauma-related morbidity and mortality in high-income countries over recent years, outcomes following MSK injuries in low- and middle-income countries, such as South Africa (SA), have not. Despite governmental recognition that this is required, funding and research into this significant health burden are limited within SA. This study aims to identify research priorities within MSK trauma care using a consensus-based approach amongst MSK healthcare practitioners within SA. Members from the Orthopaedic Research Collaboration in Africa (ORCA), based in SA, collaborated using a two round modified Delphi technique to form a consensus on research priorities within orthopaedic trauma care. Members involved in the process were orthopaedic healthcare practitioners within SA. Participants from the ORCA network, working within SA, scored research priorities across two Delphi rounds from low to high priority. We have published the overall top 10 research priorities for this Delphi process. Questions were focused on two broad groups-clinical effectiveness in trauma care and general trauma public health care. Both groups were represented by the top two priorities, with the highest ranked question regarding the overall impact of trauma in SA and the second regarding the clinical treatment of open fractures. This study has defined research priorities within orthopaedic trauma in South Africa. Our vision is that by establishing consensus on these research priorities, policy and research funding will be directed into these areas. This should ultimately improve musculoskeletal trauma care across South Africa and its significant health and socioeconomic impacts.

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) perform clinically relevant research designed for immediate translation to patient care. Research questions developed with patients and parents are more likely to be relevant to stakeholders. This case study developed priority areas for patient-centered outcomes research in pediatric health within the context of the Colorado Children's Outcomes Network, a statewide pediatric PBRN, and in collaboration with stakeholders. We undertook a mixed-methods, community-engaged process to understand and develop a research agenda for our pediatric PBRN. With a stakeholder-engaged research team, we conducted 52 stakeholder interviews and 1 focus group (n = 9) addressing topics including child health issues, personal health care experiences, community health, and the health care system. Transcripts were coded and analyzed by researchers and parent advisors. We conducted a Web-based survey of PBRN stakeholders (n = 75) to rate priority issues identified in qualitative findings. Finally, we facilitated a community-engaged mixed-methods interpretation and issue selection process with our Network Advisory Board to identify issues of highest importance for Colorado Children's Outcomes Network. Six topic areas of importance to pediatric health stakeholders emerged from qualitative work. Participating stakeholders used rating surveys to rank these 6 topics. Pediatric mental health coordination and communication/integration with primary care was ranked as the most important and highest research priority. The Network Advisory Board additionally identified immunization uptake and transition from pediatric to adult health care as research priority areas. This pediatric PBRN identified numerous research priorities in pediatric health and selected 3 for immediate research action. PBRNs can use community-engaged, mixed-methods research approaches to set research priorities and develop patient-centered pediatric research agendas.

Research priorities are often set by academic researchers or the pharmaceutical industry. The interests of patients, carers and clinicians may therefore be overlooked and research questions that matter may be neglected. The aims of this study were to collect uncertainties about the treatment of Type 1 diabetes from patients, carers and health professionals, and to collate and prioritize these uncertainties to develop a top 10 list of research priorities, using a structured priority-setting partnership of patients, carers, health professionals and diabetes organizations, as described by the James Lind Alliance. A partnership of interested organizations was set up, and from this a steering committee of 10 individuals was formed. An online and paper survey was used to identify uncertainties. These were collated, and the steering group carried out an interim priority-setting exercise with partner organizations. This group of uncertainties was then voted on to give a smaller list that went forward to the final priority-setting workshop. At this meeting, a final list of the top 10 research priorities was agreed. An initial 1141 uncertainties were described. These were reduced to 88 indicative questions, 47 of which went out for voting. Twenty-four were then taken forward to a final priority-setting workshop. This workshop resulted in a list of top 10 research priorities in Type 1 diabetes. We have shown that it is possible using the James Lind Alliance process to develop an agreed top 10 list of research priorities for Type 1 diabetes from health professionals, patients and carers.

IntroductionIn adult IBD cohorts, CP prevalence is 48% in outpatients and 38% in hospital-based cohorts with significant impact on wellbeing, psychological health, social functioning, and higher health care utilisation and...

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.

Despite recent strides in the development of global emergency medicine (EM), the field continues to lag in applying a scientific approach to identifying critical knowledge gaps and advancing evidence-based solutions to clinical and public health problems seen in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Here, progress on the global EM research agenda created at the 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine Global Health and Emergency Care Consensus Conference is evaluated and critical areas for future development in emergency care research internationally are identified. A retrospective review of all studies compiled in the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) database from 2013 through 2015 was conducted. Articles were categorized and analyzed using descriptive quantitative measures and structured data matrices. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 2016 Annual Meeting then further conceptualized and defined global EM research priorities utilizing consensus-based decision making. Research trends in global EM research published between 2013 and 2015 show a predominance of observational studies relative to interventional or descriptive studies, with the majority of research conducted in the inpatient setting in comparison to the ED or prehospital setting. Studies on communicable diseases and injury were the most prevalent, with a relative dearth of research on chronic noncommunicable diseases. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group identified conceptual frameworks to define high-impact research priorities, including the traditional approach of using global burden of disease to define priorities and the impact of EM on individual clinical care and public health opportunities. EM research is also described through a population lens approach, including gender, pediatrics, and migrant and refugee health. Despite recent strides in global EM research and a proliferation of scholarly output in the field, further work is required to advocate for and inform research priorities in global EM. The priorities outlined in this paper aim to guide future research in the field, with the goal of advancing the development of EM worldwide.

Background.There are increasing imperatives for patients and members of the public to engage as partners in identifying health research priorities. The use of participatory methods to engage stakeholders in health care in research prioritization is not commonly reported.Objective.This article analyses the use of World Cafés as a participatory method for research prioritization with marginalized communities in Ireland and the USA.Methods.The principles of purposeful and snowball sampling were followed in both settings and a diverse range of community and health care stakeholders participated (n = 63 Ireland and n = 55 USA). The principles for a classic World Café were employed but there were novel features in each setting as well. Stewart et al.’s (Patients’ and clinicians’ research priorities. Health Expect 2011; 14: 439–48, conceptual framework for patient engagement was adapted and used to comparatively analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the World Cafés, focusing on agenda setting, engagement with research processes, interactional features and outputs.Results.Design principles for World Cafés were found to align with high-quality patient engagement for research prioritization in both settings. They served to facilitate meaningful collaboration among stakeholder groups in research prioritization (research agenda setting) and explored research priorities (engagement with research). The café ambience, emphasis on hospitality and self-facilitation created an environment for dialogues within and across participating groups (interactional features). There was a commitment to follow-up actions with reference to possible subsequent research (outputs).Conclusions.The World Café is a valuable, participatory, flexible method that can be used with community and health care stakeholders for research prioritization with marginalized communities.

To guide researchers and funders, we sought to identify top priorities for research on increasing HPV vaccine coverage among US children ages 9–12 years. In Survey 1, 60 participants (researchers, health care professionals, and other stakeholders engaged in HPV vaccination research) viewed 57 research topics about increasing HPV vaccination coverage and provided additional topics. We integrated their suggestions into the list and condensed similar items to reach a list of 38 topics. In Survey 2, 230 participants identified their top ten research priorities. The top HPV vaccination research priorities and their corresponding themes were misinformation (chosen by 50% of respondents, from the theme of vaccine confidence), starting at age 9 years (48%, primary care), and single dose (48%, other). The top ten research priorities also included vaccine communication (40%, primary care), system-wide approach (39%, health system and payers), community settings (39%, alternative settings), immunization registries (38%, policy), geography and rurality (37%, populations), school mandates (37%, policy), and near elimination of HPV cancers (37%, other). The proportion of participants selecting topics within each theme varied between 15% for health system and payers to 32% for alternative settings. These research priorities highlight research areas likely to yield impactful strategies for increasing HPV vaccination. Focusing US HPV vaccine research on these topics can optimize resource allocation, inform evidence-based interventions, and support policymaking to enhance vaccine uptake.

Background: With the current COVID-19 global pandemic causing major disruption to surgical services and acute surgical care worldwide, there is a need for international collaboration to determine the most pressing COVID-19 related surgical research priorities. The aim of this study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine these, to ensure high-quality research in the future. Method: Surgical stakeholders (multidisciplinary healthcare professionals and patients) were invited by email using surgical society membership details or Twitter to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by stakeholders (phase II and III) were then completed to determine a final list of research questions. All questions were analysed on an anonymised basis. Results: A total of 510 questions were submitted by 130 stakeholders in phase I. Of these, 96 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II, which was completed by 213 stakeholders. Following Phase II analysis, 216 stakeholders prioritised 39 questions in Phase III, resulting in a final list of 13 focused questions. Stakeholders were predominantly general surgeons but included clinical-scientists and patients from over 50 countries. Conclusion: The study has identified 13 key research priorities relating to surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding applications, to establish well-designed, high-quality international collaborative research outcomes are now required to address these questions as a matter of urgency.

BACKGROUND QoL is a critical aspect of health care outcomes, particularly in the context of brain tumor treatment and survivorship. There are evidence gaps in optimal strategies for improving QoL among brain tumor patients and care partners. Understanding the multifaceted dimensions of QoL and identifying key areas for brain tumor QoL research can significantly enhance patient care and support. Engaging the brain tumor community in defining QoL outcomes and determining research priorities can help orient research resources to community needs and perspectives. OBJECTIVE To summarize the process and outcomes of an NBTS-led collaborative effort to co-design a comprehensive research agenda on QoL for brain tumor patients and care partners, as outlined in the “Brain Tumor QoL Research Agenda.” METHODS The agenda was developed through a collaborative effort involving experts in neuro-oncology, patients, care partners, patient advocacy groups, and healthcare professionals over a two-year period. A review of existing literature, patient experiences, and expert opinions informed the identification of key research priorities. A multistakeholder advisory group held monthly meetings where brain tumor QoL was defined. In 2023, we conducted two “Research Roundtables” for adults and pediatric/AYA. The World Cafe method captured data and a survey consensus process to validate findings. RESULTS The QoL research agenda delineates a multifaceted framework encompassing domains crucial for understanding and improving QoL in brain tumor patients. Key focus areas include symptom management, psychosocial support, care burden, treatment decision-making, survivorship issues, and health care delivery models. An RFP was released by NBTS with input from stakeholder advisors in April 2024. CONCLUSION The Brain Tumor QoL Research Agenda created a roadmap for advancing research efforts aimed at enhancing the QoL of individuals affected by brain tumors. By addressing the identified research priorities, healthcare stakeholders can work towards implementing effective interventions and policies to optimize patient outcomes and well-being. This program was funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®) Eugene Washington PCORI Engagement Award (EACB-23261).

Research Priorities Project, year 2000: Establishing a direction for infection control and hospital epidemiology

Identifying Service, Research and Policy priorities for preventing the impacts of family adversity on children’s mental health: An Australian national resource allocation study with professional and lived experience experts