Methodological review: Prioritizing a future research agenda for overcoming immunization implementation barriers in Pakistan.

NIH Launches Emergency Care Research Office: Coordinating Center Lauded but Challenges Noted

Research priorities for exacerbations of COPD

A Patient and Provider Research Agenda on Diabetes and Hypertension Management

Social science and health care researchers, including music therapy researchers, have conducted various types of literature reviews; these types have largely been understood as either traditional or systematic reviews. However, authors, both within and outside of music therapy, have used mixed terminology, provided questionable rationales for categorization, disagreed about categorization, or used ambiguous language to describe broad review methodologies. As an alternative to categorization, one could view literature review processes and methodologies from the standpoint of historical development and methodological value; each methodology answers different types of questions through review’s characteristics. The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive overview of literature review processes and methodologies by (a) describing the general purposes of narrow and broad literature reviews, (b) providing a historical overview of broad reviews, and (c) describing broad review methodologies in relation to their respective definitions, histories, methodological characteristics, purposes, example questions, and study examples from healthcare and music therapy literature. After providing a general overview of categories and histories of reviews, the author analyzes a total of 25 broad literature review methodologies and 2 salient broad review procedures. The author then discusses implications for music therapy research and practice, specifically in relation to current broad review publications, policy development, information flow, stakeholder engagement, and tertiary reviews. Furthermore, this article may act as an initial reference for researchers and educators.

A first step in bringing typhoid fever out of the closet

Opportunities in mental health services research.

Most of the estimated 350 million people with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection live in resource-constrained settings. Up to 25% of those persons will die prematurely of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or cirrhosis. Universal hepatitis B immunization programmes that target infants will have an impact on HBV-related deaths several decades after their introduction. Antiviral agents active against HBV are available; treatment of HBV infection in those who need it has been shown to reduce the risk of HCC and death. It is estimated that 20-30% of persons with HBV infection could benefit from treatment. However, drugs active against HBV are not widely available or utilized in persons infected with HBV. Currently recommended antiviral agents used for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection do not adequately suppress HBV, which is of great concern for the estimated 10% of the HIV-infected persons in Africa who are co-infected with HBV. Progressive liver disease has been shown to occur in co-infected persons whose HBV infection is not suppressed. In view of these concerns, an informal World Health Organization consultation of experts concluded that: chronic HBV is a major public health problem in emerging nations; all HIV-infected persons should be screened for HBV infection; HIV/HBV co-infected persons should be treated with therapies active against both viruses and that reduce the risk of resistance; standards for the management of chronic HBV infection should be adapted to resource-constrained settings. In addition, a research agendum was developed focusing on issues related to prevention and treatment of chronic HBV in resource-constrained settings.

BackgroundIn assessing the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on society, it is important to understand the communities most affected and develop methods of support. Family carers provide a vital, yet often invisible role in our society and healthcare system. Identifying research priorities for carers helps establish overall gaps in the research agenda and increases awareness of the role of carers in the community.MethodsA priority setting partnership methodology was engaged and through collaboration with carers, healthcare professionals and researchers, a participatory process was conducted to identify gaps in the current literature and prioritise research questions and uncertainties. Focus group discussions followed, the first consisted of family carers (n = 5). The second (n = 3) interviewed stakeholders namely healthcare professionals, researchers and policy makers. After collating the data, researchable questions were developed through an iterative process with a Multi Stakeholder Advisory Committee to identify the top 10 research priorities for Family Carers Ireland.ResultsThe top 10 researchable questions were distilled from a list of 16 and fit into 7 broad categories. 1) economic impact and financial strain 2) Systemic issues, education, resources and policy 3) technology 4) support services and infrastructure 5) mental health and wellbeing of the carer 6) carers in society 7) Recognition and acknowledgment of the family carer.ConclusionThe partnership focus of this project allowed the ‘ground-up’ development of research priorities for carers by carers. The COVID-19 pandemic served to magnify systemic issues already present in society, as well as highlight new burdens. As a result, the subsequent development of 10 researchable questions will guide further investigation to improve the support and wellbeing of family carers.

Research centers have become a key component of the research infrastructure in schools of social work, including the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University. In 1993, that school's Center for Mental Health Services Research (CMHSR) received funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) as a Social Work Research Development Center (R24 MH50857), with a renewal in 1999 for five more years of support. After the program announcement for the social work research development center mechanism expired, the center applied under an advanced mechanism and in 2004 was awarded five years of funding as an NIMH Advanced Center for Interventions and Services Research (P30 MH068579).This article describes the background for developing the center, the center's aims and research agenda, its structure and functioning, and outcomes of CMHSR from 1993 to the present. KEY WORDS: faculty mentoring; mental health services; National Institute of Mental Health; research center; research infrastructure ********** In 1993, the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University, St. Louis, Center for Mental Health Services Research (CMHSR) received funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) as a Social Work Research Development Center (R24 MH50857), with a renewal in 1999 for five more years of support. After the program announcement (PA) for the social work research development center mechanism expired, the center applied under an advanced mechanism and in 2004 was awarded five years of funding as an NIMH Advanced Center for Interventions and Services Research (P30 MH068579). BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND FUNDING FOR THE CMHSR Although social work has long been recognized as one of the dominant professions providing mental health services, it has lacked a commensurate level of research activity in mental health. In the late 1980s, a national Task Force on Social Work Research (1991) challenged the profession to increase its research activity in mental health, so that the services provided by social workers might be informed by research conducted by social work researchers and thus shaped by social work perspectives. The task force also called for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to launch new initiatives aimed at advancing social work's research capacity. NIMH responded through several activities targeted to social work, including a PA for Social Work Research Development Centers (SWRDCs).The announcement was widely disseminated within the social work community, and NIMH convened meetings to inform interested deans and doctoral program directors about the PA and application requisites. These national events triggered extensive discussion within the Brown School about interest in and capacity for mental health research. Mental health was one of the schools' largest curriculum concentrations in the MSW, and several faculty members identified mental health as one of their research interests. The school's strong research culture and publication record notwithstanding, it had received very few external research or training grants in the area of mental health. The dean of the Brown School (Shanti K. Khinduka, 1974-2004) asked Enola K. Proctor to lead a planning process to develop an application in response to the NIMH SWRDC announcement. Planning meetings were open to all interested faculty and included leadership of the Missouri Department of Mental Health, researchers at the University's Department of Psychiatry, and staff from local mental health organizations and agencies. An application resulted; after two submissions, the Center was established as the nation's first SWRDC in September 1993. Its mental health services research agenda reflected the interests of faculty members who developed pilot projects for the grant application. NIMH staff members, Drs. Juan Ramos and the late Kenneth G. Lutterman, were instrumental in the formation of this NIMH program announcement. …

THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT of 2010 created the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to fund and promote comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) that will “assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policymakers in making informed health decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of evidence concerning the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, monitored, and managed through research and evidence synthesis.” CER is not a new concept, but appreciation of its potential for providing patients and their clinicians with uniquely valuable information on what works, tailored to the clinical situation and to patient priorities, has increased rapidly in recent years. The research institute founded by this legislation was named to emphasize the critical importance of a patientcentered perspective in conducting this research. The PCORI Board of Governors determined early on that taking this name seriously, placing patients at the center of CER and actively engaging clinicians and other stakeholders was an ideal strategy to ensure that the PCORI research agenda stays focused on practical questions, relevant outcomes and study populations, and the possibility that treatment effects may differ across patient populations. The institute developed a definition of patient-centered outcomes research that emphasizes the voice of the patient in assessing health care options. The PCORI mission statement commits to producing and promoting high-integrity research that is “guided by patients, caregivers, and the broader healthcare community.” The institute’s first funding announcement solicited projects focused on methods for engaging patients and other stakeholders in all aspects of the research process. Merit review of more than 800 responses to this announcement is being conducted by the Center for Scientific Review of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). PCORI has modified the process in 2 ways. First, stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, and clinicians, were invited via the PCORI website to sign up if they were interested in participating in the merit reviews. A total of 48 individuals were subsequently recruited, trained by the NIH, and included as voting members of the 16 study sections (3 per section). Second, proposed scoring criteria included an additional criterion—extent of patient engagement. The founding legislation required PCORI to develop national priorities for research and a research agenda, and to post both for a 45to 60-day public comment period before major funding for research could begin. The development process extended from July to December 2011. It included examination of other recent prioritization efforts and consideration of 9 criteria cited in the statute (BOX), of the PCORI definition of patient-centered outcomes research, and of input received through discussions with stakeholder groups, including patients and their caregivers, clinicians, hospitals and health care systems, payers, the life sciences industry, and the research community. The process produced 5 national priorities (Box) and the research agenda, which are available on the PCORI website. The national priorities encompass many research areas cited by earlier priority-setting groups, but add a patientcentered perspective. Helping patients make informed health care choices will not be achieved solely by producing more CER evidence on prevention, diagnostic, or treatment strategies. New evidence is unlikely to be rapidly adopted unless the systems in which patients and clinicians make decisions are improved, removing current barriers to acting on the new information. Better methods for making CER results available and for communication about those results between patients and their clinicians are needed. Similar to studies evaluating health disparities, CER seeks evidence on possible differences in the effectiveness of treatments, in preferences for various outcomes, and in information needs across various populations. CER evidence can be further purposed to reduce or eliminate health disparities among vulnerable populations. Another priority addresses the need to build and sustain a national research infrastructure that facilitates learning from clinical experience. It calls for building clinical research databases, improving analytic methods for conducting this research, and train-

A successful global transition to net-zero emissions requires complex transformational change involving stakeholders from across society. Traditionally, stakeholder engagement has been debated predominantly from a pragmatic, functionalist and instrumental perspective. Recent approaches in business communication, sustainability, energy and environmental management show that meaningful and ‘sustainable’ stakeholder engagement is helpful in maintaining an organisation’s social licence to operate. We problematise the notion of participation in deliberative processes and analyse whether the outcomes of an online Australian citizens’ panel are truly representative of all participants or whether specific cultural and demographic factors, particularly gender, influence participation, potentially shaping the outcome. The study shows how gender need to be considered and managed as part of a legitimate deliberation process. Applying Gastil’s input-process-outcome model as a framework, we examine the engagement achieved through deliberations conducted on Zoom. We focus on gender as a variable and the role of the facilitator in managing participation. The results suggest that participants’ contributions to discussions vary based on gender of both participants and facilitators. Based on findings, the challenges of achieving equality in participatory processes are identified. The facilitator’s role is re-defined as a curator of the stakeholder engagement processes, complementing existing theory on stakeholder participation and engagement.

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Clinical and Research NewsFull AccessSuicide Experts Identify Six Questions to Guide Research in Next DecadeAaron LevinAaron LevinSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:19 Mar 2014https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2014.3a19AbstractMore clearly defining the goals and mechanisms of research into suicide may move the field forward and lead to a substantial reduction in suicides.Despite efforts at prevention, suicide rates in the United States have remained the same for the last half century. Clarifying approaches to research into suicide and its antecedents might ultimately lead to reductions in those rates, according to a new report.The National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s Research Prioritization Task Force issued a prioritized research agenda on February 5 by the public-private consortium led by Phillip Satow, chair of the board at the Jed Foundation, and Thomas Insel, M.D., director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). About 38,000 Americans die by suicide every year, and 650,000 hospital visits are attributed to suicide attempts, noted the report.“To reduce suicide, we need to know how to target our efforts: to be able to reliably identify who is at risk, how to reach them, and how to deter them from acting on suicidal thoughts,” said Insel in a statement.The NIMH funds $44 million in suicide research annually, said the research agenda authors.The document took about three years to produce, said Jane Pearson, Ph.D., chair of the Suicide Risk Consortium at NIMH and lead staffer for the research agenda. Task force members volunteered their time, and private groups and federal agencies provided administrative and meeting support.A number of organizations and advocacy groups observed that prioritizing research into other diseases helped to advance the science in those areas, she said. At present, many gaps in the science of suicide exist: surveillance, causes, detection, treatment, and trajectories through age groups.To begin the process of filling those gaps, the task force sought the views of 700 individuals, including scientists, funding bodies, clinicians, public health leaders, as well as survivors of suicide attempts and families of those who died by suicide.The research agenda distilled their inquiry down to six key questions that its authors hope will guide research over the coming decade, with an initial goal of reducing suicides by 20 percent over the next five years:Why do people become suicidalHow can we better or more optimally detect/predict risk?What interventions prevent individuals from engaging in suicidal behavior?What services are most effective for treating the suicidal person and preventing suicidal behavior?What other types of interventions (outside health care settings) reduce suicide risk?What new and existing research infrastructure is needed to reduce suicidal behavior?“This document will draw attention and researchers to the topic and facilitate funding,” said Robert Ursano, M.D., a professor and chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine in Bethesda, Md. Ursano is co-principal investigator of the ongoing Army STARRS research on military suicides (Psychiatric News, March 7) but did not take part in the task force’s work.The task force hopes to draw attention to measures already known to be effective, to test whether commonly used antisuicide programs are indeed effective, and to identify new research needed in less-studied areas.Research methodology needs attention, as well. For example, alternative trial designs may be needed to overcome difficulties in randomization. Models based on accident research or behavioral economics may be useful. Standardizations of nomenclature, national patient registries, and expansion of the National Violent Death Reporting System (which now collects data in only 18 states) would improve surveillance, to cite just some of the issues raised in the research agenda.“At NIMH, we have been trying to steer the field in this general direction to move interventions tested in clinical trials into clinical practice,” said Pearson. “We really have to compress the 17-year gap between research and clinical practice.”“[S]uicide has proven stubbornly difficult to understand, to predict, and to prevent,” said Insel. “We believe the research agenda gives us a roadmap to save lives.” ■“A Prioritized Research Agenda for Suicide Prevention: An Action Plan to Save Lives” can be accessed here. ISSUES NewArchived

The research agenda in pediatric hospital medicine has seldom considered the perspectives of young people, parents and caregivers, and health care professionals. Their perspectives may be useful in identifying questions on topics for research. To prioritize unanswered research questions in pediatric hospital medicine from the perspectives of young people, parents/caregivers, and health care professionals. Between August 4, 2020, and August 19, 2021, two online surveys and a virtual workshop were conducted, using modified Delphi technique and nominal group technique. Young people, parents/caregivers, and health care professionals with experiences in pediatric hospital medicine in Canada were included. The established James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method was used. In phase 1, a survey collected unanswered questions regarding pediatric hospital medicine via 3 open-ended questions. Survey responses were used to develop summary questions that went through an evidence-checking process. Unanswered questions were brought to a phase 2 interim prioritization survey. The top 10 unanswered research questions in pediatric hospital medicine were established at the final priority setting workshop. Survey responses, top 10 research questions. The phase 1 survey was completed by 188 participants (148 of 167 [89%] females; 17 of 167 [10%] males; mean [SD] age, 39.5 [12.4] years) and generated 495 unanswered research questions and comments, of which 58 were deemed out of scope. The remaining 437 responses were grouped into themes (eg, communication, shared decision-making, health service delivery, and health service management) and then refined to 75 unanswered research questions. Of these 75, only 4 questions had sufficient evidence. To make the number of questions in phase 2 manageable, 21 questions submitted by only 1 respondent were eliminated. Fifty unanswered research questions were included in the phase 2 survey, which was completed by 201 participants (165 of 186 [89%] females; 19 of 186 [10%] males; mean [SD] age, 40.0 [11.0] years). A short list of 16 questions-the top 10 questions from patient partners (youths, parents/caregivers) and clinicians-was presented at the final priority setting workshop and the top 10 questions were prioritized. The top 10 questions focused on the care of special inpatient populations (eg, children with medical complexity), communication, shared decision-making, support strategies in the hospital, mental health supports, shortening length of stay, and supporting Indigenous patients, parents/caregivers, and families. This patient-oriented pediatric hospital medicine priority setting partnership identified the most important unanswered research questions focused on the care of children in the hospital. These questions provide a possible roadmap for research on areas deemed important to young people, parents/caregivers, and clinicians.

Patient (also referred to as User or Older Adult) engaged research is a unique approach to research design, implementation, and dissemination. The practice of engaged research, in its broader sense, involves service recipients, caregivers, clinicians, and other stakeholders in prioritization of research questions, approach, and practice translation to ensure strong stewardship of funds, valid and reliable methods, and practical application. Patient engaged research also aligns with tenets of person-centered care in the inclusive nature and the expectation that the practice will improve the processes and the outcomes of research. Likewise, GSA’s focus on diversity of thought through interdisciplinary work strongly aligns with inclusion of patient and stakeholder voices in the performance of interdisciplinary research. Although patient and stakeholder engagement in research is a new approach for many, globally, funders increasingly require evidence of “meaningful” engagement in project proposals. In the United States, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is well-known for funding engaged research and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) has demonstrated use of “collaborative” methods central to patient engagement within the IMPACT Collaboratory. Patient engagement literature, while growing, does not yet provide adequate guidance for replication of current or development of new approaches to patient engagement in research. Therefore, the purpose of this symposium is to frame patient engagement through a historic lens (Roes) and discuss the ethics of engagement (O’Sullivan). In addition, we will share program outcomes from three patient engagement programs: the Leading Age LTSS Center, Rural Patient & Stakeholder Engagement, and Sages in Every Setting. Patient/Person Engagement in Research Interest Group Sponsored Symposium.

The field of medical grade footwear is dynamic. Originally, a field where individual knowledge, expertise and skills determined the footwear and its outcomes, now becoming a more evidence-based and data-driven field with protocols and systems in place to create appropriate footwear. However, scientific evidence concerning medical grade footwear is still limited. Evidently, all stakeholders, from patients to pedorthists to rehabilitation physicians, will profit from a larger evidence-base in this field. A widely supported research agenda is an essential first step to advance and facilitate new knowledge. We formed a multidisciplinary team and followed the methodology from Dutch medical societies for the development of a research agenda on medical grade footwear. This consisted of seven steps: (1) inventory of relevant questions with users and professionals; (2) analyses of responses; (3) analyses of existing knowledge and evidence; (4) formulating research questions; (5) prioritising research questions by users and professionals; (6) finalising the research agenda and (7) implementing the research agenda. In phase 1, 109 participants completed a survey, including 50% pedorthists, 6% rehabilitation physicians and 3% users. Participants provided 228 potential research questions. In phases 2-4, these were condensed to 65 research questions. In phase 5, 152 participants prioritised these 65 research questions, including 50% pedorthists, 13% rehabilitation physicians and 9% users. In phase 6, the final research agenda was created, with 26 research questions, categorised based on the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health 'process description assistive devices'. In phase 7, an implementation meeting was held with over 50 stakeholders (including users and professionals), resulting in seven applications for research projects based on one or more research questions from the research agenda. This research agenda structures and guides knowledge development within the field of medical grade footwear in the Netherlands and elsewhere. We expect that this will help to stimulate the field to tackle the research questions prioritised and with that to advance scientific knowledge in this field.