Priority Setting Project Research Articles

Optimizing peripheral regional anaesthesia: strategies for single shot and continuous blocks.

Regional anaesthesia is increasingly prominent within anaesthesia, offering alternative analgesic options amidst concerns over opioid-based analgesia. Since Halsted's initial description, the field has burgeoned, with ultrasound visualization revolutionizing local anaesthetic spread assessment, leading to the development of numerous novel techniques. The benefits of regional anaesthesia have gained increasing evidence to support their application, leading to changes within training curricula. Consequently, regional anaesthesia is at a defining moment, embracing the development of core skills for the general anaesthesiologist, whilst also continuing the advancement of the specialty. Recent priority setting projects have focussed attention on key aspects of regional anaesthesia delivery, including pain management, conduct and efficacy, education, and technological innovation. Developments in our current understanding of anatomy and pharmacology, combined with strategies for optimizing the conduct and maximizing efficacy of techniques, minimizing complications, and enhancing outcomes are explored. In addition, advancements in education and training methodologies and the integration of progress in novel technologies will be reviewed. This review highlights recent scientific advances in optimizing both single-shot and continuous peripheral regional anaesthesia techniques. By synthesizing these developments, this review offers valuable insights into the evolving landscape of regional anaesthesia, aiming to improve clinical practice and patient care.

Identifying research priorities for improving information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a UK patient-centred priority setting project

PurposeTo use robust consensus methods with individuals with lived breast cancer experience to agree the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery in the UK.MethodsResearch uncertainties related to information and support for breast cancer surgery submitted by patients and carers were analysed thematically to generate summary questions for inclusion in an online Delphi survey. Individuals with lived breast cancer experience completed two Delphi rounds including feedback in which they selected their top 10 research priorities from the list provided. The most highly ranked priorities from the survey were discussed at an in-person prioritisation workshop at which the final top 10 was agreed.ResultsThe 543 uncertainties submitted by 156 patients/carers were categorised into 63 summary questions for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Of the 237 individuals completing Round 1, 190 (80.2%) participated in Round 2. The top 25 survey questions were carried forward for discussion at the in-person prioritisation workshop at which 17 participants from across the UK agreed the final top 10 research priorities. Key themes included ensuring patients were fully informed about all treatment options and given balanced, tailored information to support informed decision-making and empower their recovery. Equity of access to treatments including contralateral mastectomy for symmetry was also considered a research priority.ConclusionThis process has identified the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Work is now needed to develop studies to address these important questions.

Research priorities relating to the delivery of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programmes: results of a modified Delphi process

ObjectiveThe purpose of this British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (BACPR) research priority setting project (PSP) was to identify a top 10 list of priority research questions for cardiovascular...

Identifying unanswered questions and setting the agenda for future systematic research in Multiple Sclerosis. A worldwide, multi-stakeholder Priority Setting project

BackgroundEliciting the research priorities of people affected by a condition, carers and health care professionals can increase research value and reduce research waste. The Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Disease of CNS Group, in collaboration with the Cochrane Neurological Sciences Field, launched a priority setting exercise with the aim of prioritizing pressing questions to ensure that future systematic reviews are as useful as possible to the people who need them, in all countries, regardless of their economic status. MethodSixteen high priority questions on different aspects of MS were developed by members of a multi-stakeholder priority setting Steering Group (SG). In an anonymous online survey translated into 12 languages researchers, clinicians, people with MS (PwMS) and carers were asked to identify and rank, 5 out of 16 questions as high priority and to provide an explanation for their choice. An additional free-text priority research topic suggestion was allowed. ResultsThe survey was accessible through MS advocacy associations’ social media and Cochrane web pages from October 20, 2020 to February 6, 2021. 1.190 responses (86.73% of all web contacts) were evaluable and included in the analysis. Responses came from 55 countries worldwide, 7 of which provided >75% of respondents and 95% of which were high and upper-middle income countries. 58.8% of respondents live in the EU, 23% in the Americas, 8.9% in the Western Pacific, 2.8% in the Eastern Mediterranean and 0.3% in South Eastern Asia. About 75% of the respondents were PwMS. The five research questions to be answered with the highest priority were: Question (Q)1 “Does MRI help predict disability worsening of PwMS?” (19.9%), Q5 “What are the benefits and harms of treating PwMS with one disease-modifying drug compared to another?” (19.3%), Q3 “Does multidisciplinary care by teams of different social and health professionals improve health outcomes and experiences for PwMS?” (11.9%), Q16 “Does psychological health affect disease progression in PwMS?” (9.2%) and Q10 “What are the benefits and harms of exercise for PwMS?” (7.2%). The multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated a significant influence of geographic area and income level on the ranking of Q1 and a marginal for Q16 as top a priority after accounting for the effect of all other predictors. Approximately 50% of the respondents indicated that they had an important additional suggestion to be considered. ConclusionThis international collaborative initiative in the field of MS offers a worldwide perspective on the research questions perceived as pivotal by a geographically representative sample of multiple stakeholders in the field of MS. The results of the survey could guide the prioritization of research on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions which could be meaningful and useful for PwMS and carers, avoiding the duplication of efforts and research waste. High quality systematic reviews elicited by priority setting exercises may offer the best available evidence and inform decisions by healthcare providers and policy-makers which can be adapted to the different realities around the world.

Research priorities to improve the health of children and adults with dysphagia: a National Institute of Health Research and Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists research priority setting partnership

ObjectiveTo conduct the first UK-wide research priority setting project informing researchers and funders of critical knowledge gaps requiring investigation to improve the health and well-being of patients with eating, drinking...

Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group\u2019s systematic review priority-setting project

ABSTRACTBackgroundHealth researchers and funders are increasingly consulting with stakeholders to set their research agendas but these activities are rarely evaluated. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) conducted a priority-setting project for systematic reviews in partnership with stakeholders (consumers/patients, health professionals, policy-makers and others). In this paper, we aim to describe our evaluation of the project’s processes and outcomes.MethodsWe used a 10-element conceptual framework designed to evaluate processes (e.g. stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process) and outcomes (e.g. improved decision-making quality, stakeholder acceptance and understanding) of health priority-setting. Data sources included empirical data (feedback surveys, project documents and CCCG editorial policies) and CCCG staff reflections. Data were analysed using content analysis.ResultsThe project met three and partially met two of the process elements, for example, by engaging key stakeholders throughout the project and using pre-determined and transparent methods that offered multiple and meaningful ways to contribute. The project met three and partially met two of the outcome elements. Stakeholders were satisfied with and accepted the process and an additional six Cochrane Review titles aligned with stakeholder priorities are now being conducted in partnership with stakeholders. The project has also directly influenced the editorial work of CCCG, for example, by shifting its organisational focus towards coproduction, and indirectly influenced the work of Cochrane’s prioritisation and coproduction activities. Some areas were identified as having room for improvement, for example, there was low participation by people from diverse backgrounds, stakeholders could contribute to most but not all project stages, and there was no formal way for stakeholders to appeal decisions at project end. In the 3 years since its completion, the Cochrane Reviews are nearing completion but none of the reviews have been published.ConclusionWe demonstrated that our priority-setting methods were broadly in line with best practice and the project resulted in many positive outcomes beyond just identifying the top priorities for research. Our evaluation framework and recommendations for future evaluations may be of use to priority-setting researchers planning similar activities.

Evidence available for patient-identified priorities in depression research: results of 11 rapid responses.

ObjectivesPatient priority setting projects (PPSPs) can reduce research agenda bias. A key element of PPSPs is a review of available literature to determine if the proposed research priorities have been addressed, identify research gaps, recognise opportunities for knowledge translation (KT) and avoid duplication of research efforts. We conducted rapid responses for 11 patient-identified priorities in depression to provide a map of the existing evidence.DesignEleven rapid responses.Data sourcesSingle electronic database (PubMed).Eligibility criteriaEach rapid response had unique eligibility criteria. For study designs, we used a stepwise inclusion process that started with systematic reviews (SRs) if available, then randomised controlled trials and observational studies as necessary.ResultsFor all but one of the rapid responses we identified existing SRs (median 7 SRs per rapid response, range 0–179). There were questions where extensive evidence exists (ie, hundreds of primary studies), yet uncertainties remain. For example, there is evidence supporting the effectiveness of many non-pharmacological interventions (including psychological interventions and exercise) to reduce depressive symptoms. However, targeted research is needed that addresses comparative effectiveness of promising interventions, specific populations of interest (eg, children, minority groups) and adverse effects.ConclusionsWe identified an extensive body of evidence addressing patient priorities in depression and mapped the results and limitations of existing evidence, areas of uncertainty and general directions for future research. This work can serve as a solid foundation to guide future research in depression and KT activities. Integrated knowledge syntheses bring value to the PPSP process; however, the role of knowledge synthesis in PPSPs and methodological approaches are not well defined at present.

People with lived experience (PWLE) of depression: describing and reflecting on an explicit patient engagement process within depression research priority setting in Alberta, Canada

Plain English summaryThe Alberta Depression Research Priority Setting Project aimed to meaningfully involve patients, families and clinicians in determining a research agenda aligned to the needs of Albertans who have experienced depression. The project was modeled after a process developed in the UK by the James Lind Alliance and adapted to fit the Alberta, Canada context. This study describes the processes used to ensure the voices of people with lived experience of depression were integrated throughout the project stages. The year long project culminated with a facilitated session to identify the top essential areas of depression research focus. People with lived experience were engaged as part of the project’s Steering Committee, as survey participants and as workshop participants. It is hoped this process will guide future priority setting opportunities and advance depression research in Alberta.BackgroundThe Depression Research Priority Setting (DRPS) project has the clear aim of describing the patient engagement process used to identify depression research priorities and to reflect on the successes of this engagement approach, positive impacts and opportunities for improvement. To help support patient-oriented depression research priority setting in Alberta, the Patient Engagement (PE) Platform of the Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Unit designed, along with the support of their partners in addictions and mental health, an explit process to engage patients in the design and execution of the DRPS.MethodsThe UK’s James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) method was adapted into a six step process to ensure voices of “people with lived experience” (PWLE) with depression were included throughout the project stages. This study uses an explicit and parallel patient engagement process throughout each estage of the PSP designed by the PE Platform. Patient engagement was divided into a five step process: i) Awareness and relationship building; ii) Co-designing and co-developing a shared decision making process; iii) Collaborative communication; iv) Collective sensemaking; and v) Acknowledgement, celebration and recognition. A formative evaluation of the six PE processes was undertaken to explore the success of the parallel patient engagement process.ResultsThis project was successful in engaging people with lived depression experience as partners in research priority setting, incorporating their voices into the discussions and decisions that led to the top 25 depression research questions.ConclusionsThe DRPS project has positively contributed to depression research in Canada by identifying the priorities of Albertans who have experienced depression for depression research. Dissemination activities to promote further knowledge exchange of prioritized research questions, with emphasis on the importance of process in engaging the voices of PWLE of depression are planned.

Long-term views on chronic kidney disease research priorities among stakeholders engaged in a priority-setting partnership: A qualitative study

BackgroundPatients and stakeholders are increasingly engaging in health research to help address evidence‐practice gaps and improve health‐care delivery. We previously engaged patients, caregivers, health‐care providers (HCPs) and policymakers in identifying priorities for chronic kidney disease (CKD) research.ObjectiveWe aimed to explore participants' views on the research priorities and prioritization process 2 years after the exercise took place.DesignIn this qualitative descriptive study, individual interviews were conducted and analysed using an inductive, thematic analysis approach.Setting/participantsParticipants resided across Canada. We purposively sampled across stakeholder groups (CKD patients, caregivers, HCPs and policymakers) and types of engagement (wiki, workshop and/or steering committee) from the previous CKD priority‐setting project.ResultsAcross 23 interviews, participants discussed their research priorities over time, views on the prioritization process and perceived applicability of the priorities. Even though their individual priorities may have changed, participants remained in agreement overall with the previously identified priorities, and some perceived a distinction between patient and HCP priorities. They tended to balance individual priorities with their broader potential impact and viewed the prioritization process as systematic, collaborative and legitimate. However, participants acknowledged challenges to applying the priorities and emphasized the importance of communicating the project's outcomes upon its completion.ConclusionTwo years after engaging in CKD research prioritization, stakeholder participants remained in agreement with the previously identified priorities, which they felt reflected group deliberation and consensus. Rapport and communication were highlighted as key elements supporting effective engagement in research prioritization.

The top research questions asked by people with lived depression experience in Alberta: a survey.

To support patient-oriented setting of priorities for depression research in Alberta, the Patient Engagement Platform of the Alberta Strategy for Patient Oriented Research's Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials Unit and Alberta Health Services' Addiction and Mental Health Strategic Clinical Network, along with partners in addictions and mental health, designed the Alberta Depression Research Priority Setting Project. The aim of the project was to survey patients, caregivers and clinicians/researchers in Alberta about what they considered to be the most important unanswered questions about depression. The project adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method into a 6-step process to gather and prioritize questions about depression posed by people with lived depression experience, which included patients, caregivers, clinicians and health care practitioners. Implementation of the project, from initial data collection to final priority setting, took 10 months (August 2016 to June 2017). A total of 445 Albertans with lived experience of depression participated, ultimately identifying 11 priority depression research questions spanning the health continuum, life stages, and treatment and prevention opportunities. This project is a fundamental step that has the potential to positively influence depression research. Including the voices of Albertans with lived experience will create advantages for depression research for Albertans, researchers and research funders, and for patient engagement in the research enterprise overall.

Shared research priorities for pessary use in women with prolapse: results from a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

ObjectivesTo identify the shared priorities for future research of women affected by and clinicians involved with pessary use for the management of prolapse.DesignA priority setting project using a consensus method.SettingA...

Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties.

IntroductionPeople with complex wounds are more likely to be elderly, living with multimorbidity and wound related symptoms. A variety of products are available for managing complex wounds and a range of healthcare professionals are involved in wound care, yet there is a lack of good evidence to guide practice and services. These factors create uncertainty for those who deliver and those who manage wound care. Formal priority setting for research and implementation topics is needed to more accurately target the gaps in treatment and services. We solicited practitioner and manager uncertainties in wound care and held a priority setting workshop to facilitate a collaborative approach to prioritising wound care-related uncertainties.MethodsWe recruited healthcare professionals who regularly cared for patients with complex wounds, were wound care specialists or managed wound care services. Participants submitted up to five wound care uncertainties in consultation with their colleagues, via an on-line survey and attended a priority setting workshop. Submitted uncertainties were collated, sorted and categorised according professional group. On the day of the workshop, participants were divided into four groups depending on their profession. Uncertainties submitted by their professional group were viewed, discussed and amended, prior to the first of three individual voting rounds. Participants cast up to ten votes for the uncertainties they judged as being high priority. Continuing in the professional groups, the top 10 uncertainties from each group were displayed, and the process was repeated. Groups were then brought together for a plenary session in which the final priorities were individually scored on a scale of 0–10 by participants. Priorities were ranked and results presented. Nominal group technique was used for generating the final uncertainties, voting and discussions.ResultsThirty-three participants attended the workshop comprising; 10 specialist nurses, 10 district nurses, seven podiatrists and six managers. Participants had been qualified for a mean of 20.7 years with a mean of 16.8 years of wound care experience. One hundred and thirty-nine uncertainties were submitted electronically and a further 20 were identified on the day of the workshop following lively, interactive group discussions. Twenty-five uncertainties from the total of 159 generated made it to the final prioritised list. These included six of the 20 new uncertainties. The uncertainties varied in focus, but could be broadly categorised into three themes: service delivery and organisation, patient centred care and treatment options. Specialist nurses were more likely to vote for service delivery and organisation topics, podiatrists for patient centred topics, district nurses for treatment options and operational leads for a broad range.ConclusionsThis collaborative priority setting project is the first to engage front-line clinicians in prioritising research and implementation topics in wound care. We have shown that it is feasible to conduct topic prioritisation in a short time frame. This project has demonstrated that with careful planning and rigor, important questions that are raised in the course of clinicians’ daily decision making can be translated into meaningful research and implementation initiatives that could make a difference to service delivery and patient care.

Top 10 research priorities relating to stroke nursing: a rigorous approach to establish a national nurse-led research agenda.

To determine the top 10 research priorities specific to stroke nursing. It is important that stroke nurses build their research capability and capacity. This project built on a previous James Lind Alliance prioritization project, which established the shared stroke research priorities of stroke survivors, carers and health professionals. Research priority setting project using James Lind Alliance methods; a survey for interim prioritization and a consensus meeting for final priority setting. Between September - November 2014, stroke nurses were invited to select their top 10 priorities from a previously established list of 226 unique unanswered questions. These data were used to generate a list of shared research priorities (interim priority setting stage). A purposefully selected group of stroke nurses attended a final consensus meeting (April 2015) to determine the top 10 research priorities. During the interim prioritization stage, 97 stroke nurses identified 28 shared priority treatment uncertainties. At the final consensus meeting, 27 stroke nurses reached agreement on the top 10 stroke nursing research priorities. Five of the top 10 questions relate to stroke-specific impairments and five relate to rehabilitation and long-term consequences of stroke. The research agenda for stroke nursing has now been clearly defined, facilitating nurses to undertake research, which is of importance to stroke survivors and carers and central to supporting optimal recovery and quality of life after stroke.

Development of a new model to engage patients and clinicians in setting research priorities

Equitable involvement of patients and clinicians in setting research and funding priorities is ethically desirable and can improve the quality, relevance and implementation of research. Survey methods used in previous priority setting projects to gather treatment uncertainties may not be sufficient to facilitate responses from patients and their lay carers for some health care topics. We aimed to develop a new model to engage patients and clinicians in setting research priorities relating to life after stroke, and to explore the use of this model within a James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting project. We developed a model to facilitate involvement through targeted engagement and assisted involvement (FREE TEA model). We implemented both standard surveys and the FREE TEA model to gather research priorities (treatment uncertainties) from people affected by stroke living in Scotland. We explored and configured the number of treatment uncertainties elicited from different groups by the two approaches. We gathered 516 treatment uncertainties from stroke survivors, carers and health professionals. We achieved approximately equal numbers of contributions; 281 (54%) from stroke survivors/carers; 235 (46%) from health professionals. For stroke survivors and carers, 98 (35%) treatment uncertainties were elicited from the standard survey and 183 (65%) at FREE TEA face-to-face visits. This contrasted with the health professionals for whom 198 (84%) were elicited from the standard survey and only 37 (16%) from FREE TEA visits. The FREE TEA model has implications for future priority setting projects and user-involvement relating to populations of people with complex health needs. Our results imply that reliance on standard surveys may result in poor and unrepresentative involvement of patients, thereby favouring the views of health professionals.

Using evaluation theory in priority setting and resource allocation

Public sector interest in methods for priority setting and program or policy evaluation has grown considerably over the last several decades, given increased expectations for accountable and efficient use of resources and emphasis on evidence-based decision making as a component of good management practice. While there has been some occasional effort to conduct evaluation of priority setting projects, the literatures around priority setting and evaluation have largely evolved separately. In this paper, the aim is to bring them together. The contention is that evaluation theory is a means by which evaluators reflect upon what it is they are doing when they do evaluation work. Theories help to organize thinking, sort out relevant from irrelevant information, provide transparent grounds for particular implementation choices, and can help resolve problematic issues which may arise in the conduct of an evaluation project. A detailed review of three major branches of evaluation theory--methods, utilization, and valuing--identifies how such theories can guide the development of efforts to evaluate priority setting and resource allocation initiatives. Evaluation theories differ in terms of their guiding question, anticipated setting or context, evaluation foci, perspective from which benefits are calculated, and typical methods endorsed. Choosing a particular theoretical approach will structure the way in which any priority setting process is evaluated. The paper suggests that explicitly considering evaluation theory makes key aspects of the evaluation process more visible to all stakeholders, and can assist in the design of effective evaluation of priority setting processes; this should iteratively serve to improve the understanding of priority setting practices themselves.

Priority setting in primary health care: a framework for local catchments

Managers and staff in primary health care partnerships in local catchments, particularly in regional areas, are periodically required to work collaboratively to set health priorities. Setting priorities involves making decisions about which health needs are most important and what programs will be funded to address them. There is no universally agreed set of decision-making rules for setting priorities. Dominant approaches prioritise health economics, and have favoured expert knowledge drawn from technical-rational methodologies rather than consumer involvement and community action. However, research reveals that setting priorities is a complex, value laden, contested process buffeted by competing objectives and political interests. As such, an interdisciplinary, collaborative approach is called for. Using reflective practice from a priority setting project for a primary care partnership in a local, regional catchment in Victoria, Australia, a conceptual framework for priority setting is presented that identifies 13 interconnected factors spanning economic, political, policy, epidemiological, moral, evidentiary and evaluative domains. This interdisciplinary framework extends current knowledge about the considerations and trade-offs in setting priorities among collaborating primary health care agencies. It offers a potentially valuable heuristic tool for healthcare decision-makers in rural areas.

Public involvement in health care priority setting: an overview of methods for eliciting values.

There is increasing interest, in the UK and elsewhere, in involving the public in health care priority setting. At the same time, however, there is evidence of lack of clarity about the objectives of some priority setting projects and also about the role of public involvement. Further, some projects display an apparent ignorance of both long-standing theoretical literature and practical experience of methodologies for eliciting values in health care and related fields. After a brief examination of the context of health care priority setting and public involvement, this paper describes a range of different approaches to eliciting values. These approaches are critically examined on a number of dimensions including the type of choice allowed to respondents and the implications of aggregation of values across individuals. Factors which affect the appropriateness of the different techniques to specific applications are discussed. A check-list of questions to be asked when selecting techniques is presented.

RESEARCH: Environmental Priority-Setting Through Comparative Risk Assessment.

/ More than three dozen states and communities in the United States have undertaken comparative risk projects to establish environmental priorities and, thus, to address their most important environmental problems. This trend has been supported by a growing consensus among subnational governments that they are increasingly encumbered with prescriptive, top-down environmental regulations and policies without regard to the policies' efficacy, benefit, or cost. Despite the rising use of comparative risk projects, few studies have systematically analyzed and compared them. The purpose of our research was to fill this void. Weexamined key elements of comparative risk projects including how they were administered; how they involved the public; how they characterized, ranked, and prioritized risks; whether and how they implemented ranking results; and whether and how they evaluated project results. The research team reviewed project reports and independent studies and undertook a survey of risk project participants. Results showed that while many priority-setting projects have successfully identified environmental problems and characterized and ranked their risks, few have developed risk-management strategies. Successes to date include increasing environmental awareness among participants; building consensus and establishing collaboration among diverse stakeholders; and establishing novel means of public involvement. However, no project that we evaluated has, as yet, documented achievement of a system for developing and implementing environmental priorities in order to mitigate their most significant environmental problems. Further, it may be difficult to know if and when this objective is met unless projects establish mechanisms for evaluating their results, a project element that was often missing or limited in scope. We also discuss the challenges to developing implementable risk-management strategies and conclude by citing future research needs. KEY WORDS: Comparative risk assessment; Environmental priorities; Risk-ranking

A History of Oregon’s Basic Health Services Act: An Insider’s Account

The state of Oregon has led the nation in creating legislation to guarantee universal access by establishing medical and funding priorities in a basic health care package. A preliminary prioritization project--known as the Oregon Medicaid Priority-Setting Project or the Golenski project--served as a "dry run" for Oregon's Basic Health Services Act passed in 1989. A list of 15 public policy principles developed from data gathered from citizen surveys was used as guide for participants in setting priorities. Oregon's pioneering attempt at creating a health care package using prioritization must be seen in the context of the state's particular democratic traditions.

Oregon pioneers "more ethical" Medicaid coverage with priority-setting project

Oregon pioneers "more ethical" Medicaid coverage with priority-setting project