Research priority setting in women's health: a systematic review.
Consensus methods
James Lind Alliance
Nominal Group Technique
priority setting partnerships
research priorities
Journal
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
ISSN: 1471-0528
Titre abrégé: BJOG
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100935741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
accepted:
31
12
2019
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
23
4
2020
entrez:
4
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance. To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health. Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database. Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods. Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results. Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results. Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported. Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance.
OBJECTIVE
To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results.
CONCLUSION
Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32011073
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16150
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
694-700Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : NIHR-CS-012-009
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : TCS/18/43
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand
Pays : International
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Références
Duffy J, Bhattacharya S, Herman M, Mol B, Vail A, Wilkinson J, et al. Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fertility research. BJOG 2017;124:366-9.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86-9.
Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 2000;355:2037-40.
Petit-Zeman S, Firkins L, Scadding JW. The James Lind Alliance: tackling research mismatches. Lancet 2010;376:667-9.
James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance Guidebook. Southampton, United Kingdom: National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2018.
Chien PF, Khan KS, Siassakos D. Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO. BJOG 2012;119:903-5.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.
Horne AW, Saunders PTK, Abokhrais IM, Hogg L. Top ten endometriosis research priorities in the UK and Ireland. Lancet 2017;389:2191-2.
RCOG World Congress 2019. Special Issue: Top Scoring Abstracts of the RCOG World Congress 2019, 17-19 June 2019, London, UK. BJOG 2019;126:1-245.
Prior M, Bagness C, Brewin J, Coomarasamy A, Easthope L, Hepworth-Jones B, et al. Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals following the James Lind Alliance methodology. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016571.
Rees SE, Chadha R, Donovan LE, Guitard ALT, Koppula S, Laupacis A, et al. Engaging patients and clinicians in establishing research priorities for gestational diabetes mellitus. Can J Diabetes 2017;41:156-63.
Duley L, Uhm S, Oliver S. Top 15 UK research priorities for preterm birth. Lancet 2014;383:2041-2.
Heazell AEP, Whitworth MK, Whitcombe J, Glover SW, Bevan C, Brewin J, et al. Research priorities for stillbirth: process overview and results from UK Stillbirth Priority Setting Partnership. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;46:641-7.
Wan YL, Beverley-Stevenson R, Carlisle D, Clarke S, Edmondson RJ, Glover S, et al. Working together to shape the endometrial cancer research agenda: The top ten unanswered research questions. Gynecol Oncol 2016;143:287-93.
The Contraception Priority Setting Partnership. Collaboration, Choice, Care: The Contraception Priority Setting Partnership. London, United Kingdom: Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2017.
HGPSP Steering Group. Hyperemesis Gravidarum Priority Settng Partnership Protocol. Southampton, United Kingdom: James Lind Alliance; 2018.
Pregnancy Hypertension Priority Setting Partnership. Protocol. Southampton, United Kingdom: James Lind Alliance; 2018.
Diabetes and Pregnancy Priority Setting Partnership. Protocol. Southampton, Untied Kingdom: James Lind Alliance; 2019.
Twins Research Australia. What research questions are important for the future health of twins and multiples? 2018 [cited 2019 03/07/2019]; Available from: www.twins.org.au/research/current-studies/354-what-research-questions-are-important-for-the-future-health-of-twins-and-multiples.
Lam JR, Liu B, Bhate R, Fenwick N, Reed K, Duffy JMN, et al.Research priorities for the future health of multiples and their families: The Global Twins and Multiples Priority Setting Partnership. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Accepted for publication.
Priority Setting Partnership for Infertility. What should infertility research focus on next? London, United Kingdom: Priority Setting Partnership for Infertility; 2019.
Contraception Prioity Setting Partnership. Contraception Top 10. 2019 [cited 07/07/2019]; Available from: www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/contraception/top-10-priorities.htm.
Miscarriage Priority Setting Partnership.Miscarriage Top 10, 2018 [cited; Available from: www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/miscarriage/top-10-priorities.htm].
Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 2018;52:1893-907.
Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CF, Askham J, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 1998;2:i-iv, 1-88.