Prioritize Research Questions Research Articles

Why and how to collect representative study samples in educational neuroscience research

BackgroundEducational neuroscience research, which investigates the neurobiological mechanisms of learning, has historically incorporated samples drawn mostly from white, middle-class, and/or suburban populations. However, sampling in research without attending to representation can lead to biased interpretations and results that are less generalizable to an intended target population. Prior research revealing differences in neurocognitive outcomes both within- and across-groups further suggests that such practices may obscure significant effects with practical implications. BarriersNegative attitudes among historically marginalized communities, stemming from historical mistreatment, biased research outcomes, and implicit or explicit attitudes among research teams, can hinder diverse participation. Qualities of the research process including language requirements, study locations, and time demands create additional barriers. SolutionsFlexible data collection approaches, community engaugement, and transparent reporting could build trust and enhance sampling diversity. Longer-term solutions include prioritizing research questions relevant to marginalized communities, increasing workforce diversity, and detailed reporting of sample demographics. Such concerted efforts are essential for robust educational neuroscience research to maximize positive impacts broadly across learners.

Research priorities for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in humanitarian crises: A global prioritisation exercise

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions should provide access to safe water and sanitation, and promote good hygiene practices with dignity, comfort and security. Multiple systematic reviews have noted evidence gaps and is a paucity of good quality evidence related to the effectiveness and implementation of WASH programmes and interventions in humanitarian crises. The aim of this study was to generate consensus-based actionable research priorities for the humanitarian WASH sector. A research prioritisation exercise was conducted by adapting the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method. Research questions were compiled from a rapid scoping review, key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). Questions were reviewed by a technical expert group. An online survey was circulated to score research questions according to five criteria. An overall prioritisation score was calculated and weighted to prioritise questions. A diverse range of 286 global WASH and health experts engaged in the CHNRI process. A list of 128 questions were generated and scored by experts. Prioritised research questions focussed on evaluating existing interventions or programmes, and making iterative changes to current programmes. Other important questions centred on describing WASH conditions and associated health risks in crises contexts. Priorities were also stratified by gender, organisation and region to understand differences globally. The WASH in Crises Research Agenda has identified key research questions of most importance to those implementing WASH in humanitarian crises and has established a list of research priorities. The identified priorities reinforce how more evidence is needed, and underlines the need for research to evaluate current practices in order to improve the quality of humanitarian response. Stakeholders, including donors, international and national organisations, governments and academic institutions, are invited to use this research agenda to encourage, inspire and enable relevant and high-quality research that will be used to inform humanitarian responses.

Expanding the Spatial Reach and Human Impacts of Critical Zone Science

AbstractTwo major barriers hinder the holistic understanding of subsurface critical zone (CZ) evolution and its impacts: (a) an inability to measure, define, and share information and (b) a societal structure that inhibits inclusivity and creativity. In contrast to the aboveground portion of the CZ, which is visible and measurable, the bottom boundary is difficult to access and quantify. In the context of these barriers, we aim to expand the spatial reach of the CZ by highlighting existing and effective tools for research as well as the “human reach” of CZ science by expanding who performs such science and who it benefits. We do so by exploring the diversity of vocabularies and techniques used in relevant disciplines, defining terminology, and prioritizing research questions that can be addressed. Specifically, we explore geochemical, geomorphological, geophysical, and ecological measurements and modeling tools to estimate CZ base and thickness. We also outline the importance of and approaches to developing a diverse CZ workforce that looks like and harnesses the creativity of the society it serves, addressing historical legacies of exclusion. Looking forward, we suggest that to grow CZ science, we must broaden the physical spaces studied and their relationships with inhabitants, measure the “deep” CZ and make data accessible, and address the bottlenecks of scaling and data‐model integration. What is needed—and what we have tried to outline—are common and fundamental structures that can be applied anywhere and used by the diversity of researchers involved in investigating and recording CZ processes from a myriad of perspectives.

Behavioral sciences applied to acute care teams: a research agenda for the years ahead by a European research network

BackgroundMulti-disciplinary behavioral research on acute care teams has focused on understanding how teams work and on identifying behaviors characteristic of efficient and effective team performance. We aimed to define important knowledge gaps and establish a research agenda for the years ahead of prioritized research questions in this field of applied health research.MethodsIn the first step, high-priority research questions were generated by a small highly specialized group of 29 experts in the field, recruited from the multinational and multidisciplinary “Behavioral Sciences applied to Acute care teams and Surgery (BSAS)” research network – a cross-European, interdisciplinary network of researchers from social sciences as well as from the medical field committed to understanding the role of behavioral sciences in the context of acute care teams. A consolidated list of 59 research questions was established. In the second step, 19 experts attending the 2020 BSAS annual conference quantitatively rated the importance of each research question based on four criteria – usefulness, answerability, effectiveness, and translation into practice. In the third step, during half a day of the BSAS conference, the same group of 19 experts discussed the prioritization of the research questions in three online focus group meetings and established recommendations.ResultsResearch priorities identified were categorized into six topics: (1) interventions to improve team process; (2) dealing with and implementing new technologies; (3) understanding and measuring team processes; (4) organizational aspects impacting teamwork; (5) training and health professions education; and (6) organizational and patient safety culture in the healthcare domain. Experts rated the first three topics as particularly relevant in terms of research priorities; the focus groups identified specific research needs within each topic.ConclusionsBased on research priorities within the BSAS community and the broader field of applied health sciences identified through this work, we advocate for the prioritization for funding in these areas.

Virtual Research Prioritization: Innovations for Research Agenda Development With Impacted Communities

Involving communities in research prioritization is an important component of developing relevant research, policy, and healthcare questions. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an increased need for research prioritization methods which align with public health protections. The Research Prioritization by Affected Communities (RPAC) protocol is a participatory method which directly involves historically excluded communities in developing and prioritizing research questions. We adapted the RPAC protocol for the virtual environment (RPAC-ve) to understand the research, healthcare delivery, and policy priorities of greatest importance to communities affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to pregnancy in the United States. RPAC-ve included the use of a web-based platform, sharable documents for listing and ranking research questions, and a scribe to capture a visual representation of RPAC-ve sessions. RPAC-ve is a flexible and effective priority setting method which can be used to engage high risk populations.

Research priorities for children’s cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK

ObjectivesTo 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.DesignJames...

Walking the Walk: Inclusion of Lived Experience Experts in the Design of the National Hemophilia Foundation's National Research Blueprint for Those Living with Inherited Bleeding Disorders

BACKGROUND: The National Hemophilia Foundation's (NHF) vision of a world without inheritable blood disorders begins with research. To that end, we have initiated a multi-year project with the goal of building a transformational research enterprise through full community-engagement. Building this innovative research ecosystem has required us to rethink how we prioritize research questions mattering most to those impacted by and caring for people with inheritable bleeding disorders (Lived Experience Experts (LEEs)), how we democratize the research culture and structure to streamline efforts, and how we ensure research findings are disseminated, relevant, representative, and inclusive. As a result of the Research State of the Science Summit in September 2021, considerable progress has been made in identifying areas most urgently requiring attention to make the greatest impact for the future. Over the past year, members of the National Research Blueprint's (NRB) steering committee (SC) and working groups (WGs) have worked to produce the necessary components to launch, sustain, and expand a research network in which LEEs contribute at all levels. Inherent in this strategy is the involvement of the LEE in research prioritization, design, implementation, and analysis as an equal partner to the traditional research team members. To demonstrate the important role played by LEEs in this process, we report the demographic make-up of the members of the NRB SC and WGs to demonstrate the large LEE presense in this effort. METHODS: Based on the insights generated during the SOS, in addition to the SC, seven multi-disciplinary NRB WGs have been created: Community Engagement; Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; Infrastructure; Lived Experience Experts (defined as individuals, their caregivers, and family members directly impacted by inheritable bleeding disorders, whose diverse and personal knowledge gives each individual the unique ability to translate lived experiences into meaningful system change); Policy; Research and Development; and Workforce (Figure 1). The WGs have been charged with addressing critical questions in the creation, sustainability, and eventual expansion of this LEE-focused research network. We collected basic demographic information for members of the SC and WGs. RESULTS: A total of 62 individuals are currently participating as members of either the NRB SC or WGs. Of these SC or WG members, 36 (58%) are female and 26 (42%) are male. Fourteen (23%) individuals are Black, Indigenous, or People of Color. Thirty SC or WG members are LEEs (48%). Twelve (33%) of the females are LEEs. Eighteen (60%) of the males are LEEs. A total of 29 (47%) of the SC and WG members are professional health-care providers (HCPs), defined as an individual with an academic degree allowing the provision of medical care to people. Twenty (69%) of the female SC or WG members are providers. Nine (31%) of the male SC or WG members are HCPs. Of the participating HCPs, 6 (21%) are LEEs including 2 (10%) who are female and four (44%) who are male (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: The NHF's multi-year process of building the National Research Blueprint for inheritable bleeding disorders has prioritized the participation of people most familiar with bleeding disorders, the LEEs, from the beginning of the process. By including LEEs in all steps of development of this endeavor, each of the WGs have benefited from the exchange of ideas and insights from the LEEs, resulting in an innovative and inclusive approach to asking questions most impactful to those affected by inheritable bleeding disorders. Almost half of the members of the NRB SC and WGs are LEEs, who are also well represented among HCPs in dual roles. The NRB, driven by, for, and with LEEs, will redefine the inheritable bleeding disorders research landscape.

What are the research priorities for strengthening public health emergency preparedness and response in Africa?

BackgroundResearch evidence is needed to strengthen capacities in emergency preparedness and response (EPR). However, the absence of a clear research agenda limits the optimal use of research evidence. This paper reports on the prioritization of research questions and topics that could contribute to evidence-informed strengthening of EPR capacities in the African region.MethodsThe priority-setting consisted of desk review and stakeholder consultation workshop. Twenty-nine people participated in the workshop, including representatives from WHO regional office and EPR focal points in Africa, representatives of research institutions, and partners from Science for Africa Foundation, United Nations Children's Fund and Africa Center for Disease Control. Modified Delphi technique was used to systematically arrive at specific and cross-cutting research priorities in the three broad areas of the EPR, which are program Implementation, Clinical and Epidemiology. The research questions/topics were ranked on five-point Likert scale (1 = very low to 5 = very high) based on seven agreed-on criteria. Research priority score was calculated for each question as the mean of the criteria scores.ResultsA total of 123 research questions comprising, 29 on Epidemiology, 22 on Clinical, 23 on program Implementation, and 49 on cross-cutting issues were ranked. The top ten research priorities were: knowledge and skills of healthcare workers in detecting and responding effectively to disease outbreaks; quality of data (accuracy, timeliness, completeness) for epidemic prone diseases; determinants of vaccine hesitancy; determinants of infection transmission among health care workers during PHE; effective measures for protecting health workers from highly infectious pathogens in PHE; strategies to improve the effectiveness of contact tracing for epidemic prone diseases; effectiveness of current case definitions as screening tools for epidemic and pandemic prone diseases; measures to strengthen national and sub-national laboratory capacity for timely disease confirmation within the Integrated Diseases Surveillance and Response framework; factors affecting prompt data sharing on epidemic-prone diseases; and effective strategies for appropriate community participation in EPR.ConclusionsThe collaborative multi-stakeholder workshop produced a starting list of priority research questions and topics for strengthening EPR capacities in Africa. Action needs to be taken to continuously update the research agenda and support member States to contextualize the research priorities and commission research for timely generation and uptake of evidence.

Early cancer detection in primary care in Ireland: a protocol for a research prioritisation exercise

Background: Cancer is a significant cause of morbidity, mortality, and economic loss in Ireland. It is important that cancer research funding is directed in accordance with the values of a wide variety of stakeholders, so as to ultimately deliver tangible benefits to cancer patients. The aim of this study is to achieve consensus among key stakeholders (including patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals, policymakers and academics) regarding research priorities in the area of early detection of cancer in primary care in Ireland. Methods: A research prioritisation exercise adapted from the James Lind Alliance (JLA) consensus framework will be used to enable all key stakeholders to identify and prioritise research questions. This involves the following stages: (1) setting up a steering group and priority setting partnership, (2) gathering potential research questions via an online survey, (3) processing, categorising, and summarising these research questions, (4) identifying the unanswered research questions, (5) determining the top 10 research priorities via a consensus workshop. Results: The following outcomes will be reported: (1) a “Top 10” list of the most important research questions in early cancer detection in primary care; (2) a list of unanswered research questions which ranked outside of the Top 10; (3) a list of research questions which were proposed but considered to be already answered by a panel of academics working in the field. Conclusions: The co-production of consensus derived research questions in early cancer detection will provide a platform for both funders and researchers to concentrate on the most significant issues to stakeholders, especially patients and their doctors.

What matters to people with chronic musculoskeletal pain consulting general practice? Comparing research priorities across different sectors.

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a common condition, often consulted in general practice. Our previous study identified research priorities among people with CMP using a broad recruitment strategy. It is unclear whether these research priorities reflect specific settings, including the population in general practice. Potential dissimilarities may have important implications for future research. Therefore, the study aims to explore potential differences between the previously established research priorities compared to priorities of people with CMP consulting general practice. Eighty-eight people living with CMP (51 females/37 males) from four regions of Denmark were recruited when they consulted their general practitioner. Participants were presented to an online survey and asked to prioritise predefined research themes (n=14) and research questions (n=38). The prioritisations were summarised into a Top-10 research priorities and compared the Top-10 from our previous study. Treatment (n=57), diagnosis (n=46), cross-sectoral management (n=39) and influence on daily life (n=39) were the most selected research themes. The most prioritised research questions regarded the effectiveness of treatments and cross-sectoral management, improving diagnostic approaches and how pain affects the individuals' mental state. Four out of ten research questions aligned with our previous Top-10. Our study identified several differences in research priorities between people living with CMP from the general population and from general practice. These findings highlight the needs for investigating how different settings influence research prioritisation. This adds important knowledge for researchers and policymakers focusing on future research within the management of CMP.

Engaging Patients and Caregivers to Develop a Patient-Centered Agenda for Comparative Effectiveness Research Focused on the Treatment of Complex Knee Problems.

Complex articular cartilage loss in the knee is being diagnosed more frequently and earlier in life, and patients are faced with major decisions regarding invasive surgical interventions at increasingly younger ages. There is a critical unmet need to provide patient-centered comparative effectiveness research for the hundreds of thousands of patients faced with these treatment decisions each year. Toward filling the need, we developed the Patient AdvisoR Team iN Orthopaedic ReSearch (PARTNORS) program. We recruited a diverse group of patients and caregivers with lived experiences in dealing with complex knee problems to define patient-centered research priorities for comparative biological and artificial knee surgery research for middle-aged adults. Adapting the Stakeholder Engagement in Question Development and Prioritization Method, PARTNORS defined a 20-question list of patient-centered research questions of factors influencing a patients' choice between biological and artificial knee surgeries. The highest prioritized research question related to functional level postsurgery as it relates to daily activities and recreational activities. The second highest prioritized research questions related to insurance coverage and financial costs. Other prioritized research areas included caregiving needs, implant longevity, recovery and rehabilitation time, patient satisfaction and success rates, individual characteristics, and risks. By engaging a group of patients and caregivers and including them as members of a multidisciplinary research team, comparative effectiveness research that includes patient-centered factors that go beyond typical clinical success indicators for knee surgery can be designed to allow physicians and patients to work together toward evidence-based shared decisions. This shared decision-making process helps to align patients' and health care team's goals and expectations to improve outcomes.

COVID-19: An opportunity to engage African Americans and women in research on cardiovascular disease

IntroductionAfrican Americans (AA) have been disproportionately affected with the COVID-19 disease experiencing 30%-60% of the deaths, while only making up 13% of the US population. Early data suggest that pregnant women and those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) may experience worse outcomes with severe coronavirus infection. There is an urgent need to incorporate AA and female perspectives into the design of research on the CVD complications related to COVID-19. ObjectivesThe goal of this project was to incorporate perspectives of AA and female patients in developing research priorities and AN agenda related to COVID-19. Objectives included: (a) develop a strong, research-ready partnership capable of executing PCOR, (b) creation of a research agenda and a set of priorities on racial/sex-specific CVD disparities in COVID-19 which reflects the perspectives of AA's and women; (c) long-term objective is creation of a set of research questions suitable for clinical research using the AHA Registry. MethodsThe project used principles of active and adult learning within the framework of capacity building to build a strong, patient-centered vision of research needs. Different methods of obtaining patient input were used to identify questions suitable for research using the America Heart Association COVID-19 CVD Quality Improvement Registry: focus groups and town halls to identify concerns and interests vis-à-vis CVD and COVID research; narrative medicine methods collected compelling real-life, COVID-19 health stories; a research advisory council reviewed and prioritized research questions. ResultsOutcomes include a replicable method of obtaining patient-oriented input into the creation of a research agenda and a set of research priorities for COVID-19. Outputs include the establishment of a research advisory council and stakeholder training using the PCORI funded, PORTAL program resources; a catalogue of patient generated narratives on COVID-19 experiences in the voice of AAs and women, and a set of research questions suitable for research using the AHA Registry. ConclusionThe project created a research ready stakeholder network, ready to develop a research agenda about COVID-19.

Cardiovascular imaging research priorities

ObjectivesTwo interlinked surveys were organised by the British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre, which aimed to establish national priorities for cardiovascular imaging research.MethodsFirst a single time point public survey explored...

Development of a Mission-Driven Research Agenda to Support Efforts to End Epidemics.

New York State continues efforts to end the AIDS and hepatitis C epidemics and reduce new infections of sexually transmitted infections. In 2022, the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute released its first-ever Research Agenda. This Research Agenda was systematically developed following input from internal and external research and community stakeholders. We used a participatory and iterative process to prioritize research knowledge gaps related to HIV/AIDS; sexual health and sexually transmitted infections; hepatitis C; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender health; drug user health; health equity; and emerging issues such as COVID-19. Questions were prioritized on the basis of the alignment with the following 5 criteria: magnitude of impact; funding and resources; feasibility of conducting research; translatability; and addresses an internal priority area. Findings are anticipated to generate actionable results that can be readily translatable into programs, policies, and practices. This Research Agenda includes 79 research and program evaluation questions prioritized for internally led and collaborative research. Efforts on 35 of the 61 internally led questions and funding of 11 collaborative research projects related to Research Agenda priorities began in 2022. An evaluation survey was conducted among all stakeholders involved in the prioritization process. All were satisfied or very satisfied with the process, and results yielded recommendations for future processes including weighting of questions relative to one another within each focus area and other suggestions to streamline the process. In year 1, 10 of the 35 questions were completed. Lessons learned include use of a participatory process to facilitate support and completion of Research Agenda, prioritize research questions to maximize impact and translatability, streamline the prioritization process by restricting proposed questions to those with clear potential for innovative research, emphasize anticipated resources necessary to implement the Research Agenda to set a realistic and actionable plan, and adaptability toward shifting priorities.

Dementia and ethnicity - partnering with community organisations to co-produce research priorities and study design exploring access to dementia services for ethnic minority patients.

Dementia is a rapidly growing problem projected to rise steepest in ethnic minority communities; nearly 600% over 40 years compared to the UK population. Despite this, patients from ethnic minorities are referred less to memory clinics, diagnosed at more advanced stages, and present more often in crisis. To complete extensive patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) work and build academic-community partnerships to prioritise research questions and co-design a study exploring dementia and ethnicity. Collaborative partnerships formed with Shipshape (South Asian), SACMHA (African and Caribbean) and Lai Yin (Chinese) community organisations and PPIE with >80 people. Shipshape Men's Club for elders with memory problems.Consultation meeting with SACMHA staff and home visits to African Caribbean house-bound elders.Deep End Research Alliance Dementia workshop.Carers event co-organised by Shipshape and Lai Yin. Community and patient: no word for dementia in several languages; dementia under-diagnosed and seen by some as unnecessary biomedical/western label and over-medicalisation; families function as single units rather than individuals and younger generations accommodate for memory problems, concealing dementia; and communities prioritise physical health over dementia and their link is under-recognised.Research and health services: dementia services not culturally competent or appropriate; all communities complained about 'parachute' academics; tangible action needed rather than perpetually re-visiting the 'problem'; and acronyms and phrases such as 'hard-to-reach' were unpopular. Lack of consensus on preferred terminology. Participatory action research project using Photovoice qualitative methodology was co-designed with communities. Stakeholders to co-produce complex intervention prototype seeking to improve dementia services for ethnic minority communities.

Research priorities regarding the use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a UK priority setting exercise.

Worldwide, many people who would benefit from osteoporosis drugs are not offered or receiving them, resulting in an osteoporosis care gap. Adherence with bisphosphonates is particularly low. This study aimed to identify stakeholder research priorities relating to bisphosphonate treatment regimens for prevention of osteoporotic fractures. A three-step approach based on the James Lind Alliance methodology for identification and prioritisation of research questions was used. Research uncertainties were gathered from a large programme of related research studies about bisphosphonate regimens and from recent published international clinical guidelines. Clinical and public stakeholders refined the list of uncertainties into research questions. The third step prioritised the questions using a modified nominal group technique. In total, 34 draft uncertainties were finalised into 33 research questions by stakeholders. The top 10 includes questions relating to which people should be offered intravenous bisphosphonates first line (1); optimal duration of treatment (2); the role of bone turnover markers in treatment breaks (3); support patient need for medicine optimisation (4); support primary care practitioner need regarding bisphosphonates (5); comparing zoledronate given in community vs hospital settings (6); ensuring quality standards are met (7); the long-term model of care (8); best bisphosphonate for people aged under 50 (9); and supporting patient decision-making about bisphosphonates (10). This study reports, for the first time, topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate osteoporosis treatment regimens. These findings have implications for research into implementation to address the care gap and education of healthcare professionals. Using James Lind Alliance methodology, this study reports prioritised topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis. The priorities address how to better implement guidelines to address the care gap, understanding patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, and how to optimise long-term care.

2022 consensus conference on diversity, equity, and inclusion: Developing an emergency medicine research agenda for addressing racism through health care research.

Racism in emergency medicine (EM) health care research is pervasive but often underrecognized. To understand the current state of research on racism in EM health care research, we developed a consensus working group on this topic, which concluded a year of work with a consensus-building session as part of the overall Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) consensus conference on diversity, equity, and inclusion: "Developing a Research Agenda for Addressing Racism in Emergency Medicine," held on May 10, 2022. In this article, we report the development, details of preconference methods and preliminary results, and the final consensus of the Healthcare Research Working Group. Preconference work based on literature review and expert opinion identified 13 potential priority research questions that were refined through an iterative process to a list of 10. During the conference, the subgroup used consensus methodology and a "consensus dollar" (contingent valuation) approach to prioritize research questions. The subgroup identified three research gaps: remedies for racial bias and systematic racism, biases and heuristics in clinical care, and racism in study design, and we derived a list of six high-priority research questions for our specialty.

P082 Research priorities regarding the use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a UK priority setting exercise

Abstract Background/Aims Worldwide, many people who would benefit from osteoporosis treatment are not offered or receiving them, resulting in an osteoporosis care gap. Adherence with bisphosphonates is particularly low. This study aimed to identify stakeholder research priorities relating to bisphosphonate regimens for the treatment of osteoporosis. Methods A three-step approach based on the James Lind Alliance methodology for identification and prioritisation of research questions was used. Research uncertainties were gathered (Step 1) from recent published international clinical guidelines and a large programme of related research studies about bisphosphonate regimens: the ‘Bisphosphonate aLternAtive regimenS for the prevenTion of Osteoporotic Fragility Fractures’ (Blast Off) study, which consisted of six discrete individual research studies conducted between May 2019 and February 2022, relating to the experience, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different bisphosphonate regimens. Clinical and public stakeholders refined the list of uncertainties into research questions (step 2) and then prioritised the questions using a modified nominal group technique (step 3) in two, day-long online workshops. Results In total, 34 draft uncertainties were finalised into 33 research questions by stakeholders. Twenty nine stakeholders were involved in refining uncertainties and prioritisation, including 16 public contributors, 2 Allied Health Professionals, 3 GPs and 8 Consultants. The top 10 questions are shown in Table 1. Conclusion This study reports, for the first time, topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate osteoporosis treatment regimens. The priorities address how to better implement guidelines to address the care gap, understanding patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, and how to optimise long-term care. These findings have implications for research into implementation to address the care gap and education of healthcare professionals in the treatment of osteoporosis. Disclosure Z. Paskins: None. A. Moult: None. N. Corp: None. A. Bastounis: None. S. Davis: Grants/research support; Grant from Roche Diagnostics to her employing insitution to fund research into the cost-effectiveness of using a biomarker to monitor response to treatment with antifracture medication. M. Narayanasamy: None. J. Griffin: None. N. Gittoes: None. J. Leonardi-Bee: None. T. Langley: None. S. Bishop: None. O. Sahota: None.

National priority setting partnership using a Delphi consensus process to develop neonatal research questions suitable for practice-changing randomised trials in the UK

BackgroundThe provision of neonatal care is variable and commonly lacks adequate evidence base; strategic development of methodologically robust clinical trials is needed to improve outcomes and maximise research resources. Historically,...

Exploring expert perceptions about microplastics: from sources to potential solutions

Concern about plastic pollution, including microplastics, is high amongst European citizens, and effective actions are needed to reduce microplastic pollution. However, there is still uncertainty and debate about the major sources, impacts, and in particular the solutions. The aim of the current study was to gather expert perceptions about the risks of different microplastic sources to the natural environment and human health (measured as the likelihood and severity of negative impacts resulting from exposure), as well as the feasibility and effectiveness of different solutions. Experts were identified as scientists working on plastic. Usable responses were received from 73 experts with an average of 5 years’ experience in plastic research. Experts thought that there was currently stronger evidence for microplastic impacts on the natural environment than on human health, that, accordingly, the risks were higher, and they were more worried about impacts on the natural environment than on human health. Experts perceived tyre particles and textile fibres to be the main sources of microplastics presenting risk for both natural environment and human health. Various solutions were rated as relatively effective and feasible overall. Solutions that were rated as above-average in terms of effectiveness and feasibility included education and awareness programmes, washing machine filters, bans of plastic items, simplified design of products, and circular economy approaches. However, experts were uncertain about the effectiveness and feasibility of recovery and clean-up solutions, with overall ratings for these being below-average in comparison to other solutions earlier in the plastic life cycle. An improved understanding of expert views on these matters could inform the distribution of limited research resources and help prioritise research questions, especially with regard to potential solutions and interventions which will be critical for the success of the UN Plastics Treaty.