Journal articles: 'James Lind Alliance'

1

Cowan, Katherine. "The James Lind Alliance." Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 33, no. 3 (July 2010): 241–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/jac.0b013e3181e62cda.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Petit-Zeman, Sophie, Lester Firkins, and John W. Scadding. "The James Lind Alliance: tackling research mismatches." Lancet 376, no. 9742 (August 2010): 667–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60712-x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Oliver, N., and R. I. G. Holt. "The James Lind Alliance research priorities for diabetes." Diabetic Medicine 36, no. 3 (February 16, 2019): 267–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.13917.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Nygaard, Agnete, Liv Halvorsrud, Siv Linnerud, Ellen Karine Grov, and Astrid Bergland. "The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review." BMJ Open 9, no. 8 (August 2019): e027473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027473.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo summarise study descriptions of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to the priority setting partnership (PSP) process and how this process is used to identify uncertainties and to develop lists of top 10 priorities.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesThe Embase, Medline (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library as of October 2018.Study selectionAll studies reporting the use of JLA process steps and the development of a list of top 10 priorities, with adult participants aged 18 years.Data extractionA data extraction sheet was created to collect demographic details, study aims, sample and patient group details, PSP details (eg, stakeholders), lists of top 10 priorities, descriptions of JLA facilitator roles and the PSP stages followed. Individual and comparative appraisals were discussed among the scoping review authors until agreement was reached.ResultsDatabase searches yielded 431 potentially relevant studies published in 2010–2018, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. JLA process participants were patients, carers and clinicians, aged 18 years, who had experience with the study-relevant diagnoses. All studies reported having a steering group, although partners and stakeholders were described differently across studies. The number of JLA PSP process steps varied from four to eight. Uncertainties were typically collected via an online survey hosted on, or linked to, the PSP website. The number of submitted uncertainties varied across studies, from 323 submitted by 58 participants to 8227 submitted by 2587 participants.ConclusionsJLA-based PSP makes a useful contribution to identifying research questions. Through this process, patients, carers and clinicians work together to identify and prioritise unanswered uncertainties. However, representation of those with different health conditions depends on their having the capacity and resources to participate. No studies reported difficulties in developing their top 10 priorities.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Oliver, N., and R. I. G. Holt. "The James Lind Alliance Research Priorities for Diabetes revisited." Diabetic Medicine 37, no. 4 (March 17, 2020): 511–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.14282.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Tatham, Kate C., Daniel F. McAuley, Mark Borthwick, Neil G. Henderson, Gemma Bashevoy, and Stephen J. Brett. "The National Institute for Health Research Critical Care Research Priority Setting Survey 2018." Journal of the Intensive Care Society 21, no. 3 (July 8, 2019): 198–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1751143719862244.

Full text

Abstract:

Introduction Defining research priorities in intensive care is key to determining appropriate allocation of funding. Several topics were identified from the 2014 James Lind Alliance priority setting exercise conducted with the Intensive Care Society. The James Lind Alliance process included significant (and vital) patient/public contribution, but excluded professionals without a bedside role. As a result it may have failed to identify potential early-stage translational research topics, which are more likely identified by medical and/or academic members of relevant specialist basic science groups. The objective of the present project was to complement the James Lind Alliance project by generating an updated list of research priorities by facilitating academic research input. Method A survey was conducted by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to identify the key research priorities from intensive care clinicians, including allied health professionals and academics, along with any evolving themes arising from translational research. Feasibility of all identified topics were then discussed and allocated to themes by a joint clinical academics/NIHR focus group. Results The survey was completed by 94 intensive care clinicians (including subspecialists), academics and allied health professions. In total, 203 research questions were identified, with the top five themes focusing on: appropriate case selection (e.g. who and when to treat; 24%), ventilation (7%), sepsis (6%), delirium (5%) and rehabilitation (5%). Discussion Utilising a methodology distinct from that employed by the James Lind Alliance process, from a broad spectrum of intensive care clinicians/scientists, enabled identification of a variety of priority research areas. These topics can now inform not only the investigator-led research agenda, but will also be considered in due course by the NIHR for potential future funding calls.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Staley, Kristina, Kourosh R. Ahmadi, Karyl Carter, Katherine Cowan, Heidi Seage, Petra Visser, Nicola Ward, and Martyn Hooper. "Research priorities in pernicious anaemia: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." BMJ Open 12, no. 8 (August 2022): e065166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065166.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectivesTo form a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to determine research priorities related to the cause, diagnosis, treatment and management of pernicious anaemia (PA) from the perspectives of patients, carers and clinicians.DesignThe PSP conducted two surveys and a workshop to identify the Top 10 questions for research. A first survey identified questions relating to the cause, diagnosis, treatment and management of PA. A literature search checked whether any of these questions had already been answered. A second survey asked respondents to identify and rank their top 10 questions from the list of questions from the first survey. An online workshop used an adapted nominal group technique to agree a final Top 10.ResultsIn the first survey, 933 people submitted 3480 responses that were categorised and summarised to generate a long list of 40 questions. None had been answered by previous research. The combined rankings from the 1068 patients, carers and clinicians who took part in the second survey identified a short list of 16 questions. These were discussed at the final workshop to agree the final Top 10. The number one question was about an accurate and reliable diagnostic test for PA. The other nine questions were about making treatment safe and effective, understanding why people with PA vary in their need for treatment, links to other conditions, and how to encourage clinicians to take PA seriously and provide long-term care.ConclusionsThis JLA PSP enabled patients, carers and clinicians to work together to agree the Top 10 uncertainties relating to the cause, diagnosis, management and treatment of PA. Addressing any of these questions will greatly benefit the end-users of research, the people whose daily lives and decisions will be directly affected by generating high quality research evidence.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Stephens, R. J., C. Whiting, and K. Cowan. "Research priorities in mesothelioma: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." Lung Cancer 89, no. 2 (August 2015): 175–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.05.021.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Scadding, J. W. "The James Lind Alliance: an opportunity for neurologists in therapeutic research?" Practical Neurology 6, no. 2 (April 1, 2006): 68–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2006.088740.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Layton, Alison, E. Anne Eady, Maggie Peat, Heather Whitehouse, Nick Levell, Matthew Ridd, Fiona Cowdell, et al. "Identifying acne treatment uncertainties via a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." BMJ Open 5, no. 7 (July 2015): e008085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008085.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Taylor, Clare J., Alyson L. Huntley, John Burden, Amy Gadoud, Toto Gronlund, Nicholas Robert Jones, Eleanor Wicks, et al. "Research priorities in advanced heart failure: James Lind alliance priority setting partnership." Open Heart 7, no. 1 (June 2020): e001258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2020-001258.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo determine research priorities in advanced heart failure (HF) for patients, carers and healthcare professionals.MethodsPriority setting partnership using the systematic James Lind Alliance method for ranking and setting research priorities. An initial open survey of patients, carers and healthcare professionals identified respondents’ questions, which were categorised to produce a list of summary research questions; questions already answered in existing literature were removed. In a second survey of patients, carers and healthcare professionals, respondents ranked the summary research questions in order of priority. The top 25 unanswered research priorities were then considered at a face-to-face workshop using nominal group technique to agree on a ‘top 10’.Results192 respondents submitted 489 responses each containing one or more research uncertainty. Out-of-scope questions (35) were removed, and collating the responses produced 80 summary questions. Questions already answered in the literature (15) were removed. In the second survey, 65 questions were ranked by 128 respondents. The top 10 priorities were developed at a consensus meeting of stakeholders and included a focus on quality of life, psychological support, the impact on carers, role of the charity sector and managing prognostic uncertainty. Ranked priorities by physicians and patients were remarkably divergent.ConclusionsEngaging stakeholders in setting research priorities led to a novel set of research questions that might not have otherwise been considered. These priorities can be used by researchers and funders to direct future research towards the areas which matter most to people living with advanced HF.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Singh, Harvinder Pal, Han Hong Chong, Parag Raval, Pip Divall, Amar Rangan, Marcus Bateman, Adam Watts, et al. "Elbow conditions: research priorities setting in partnership with the James Lind Alliance." BMJ Open 12, no. 11 (November 2022): e062177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062177.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo undertake a UK-based James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership for elbow conditions and be representative of the views of patients, carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs).SettingThis was a national collaborative study organised through the British Elbow and Shoulder Society.ParticipantsAdult patients, carers and HCPs who have managed or experienced elbow conditions, their carers and HCPs in the UK involved in managing of elbow conditions.MethodsThe rigorous JLA priority setting methodology was followed. Electronic and paper scoping surveys were distributed to identify potential research priority questions (RPQs). Initial responses were reviewed and a literature search was performed to cross-check categorised questions. Those questions already sufficiently answered were excluded and the remaining questions were ranked in a second survey according to priority for future elbow conditions research. Using the JLA methodology, responses from HCP and patients were combined to create a list of the top 18 questions. These were further reviewed in a dedicated multistakeholder workshop where the top 10 RPQs were agreed by consensus.ResultsThe process was completed over 24 months. The initial survey resulted in 467 questions from 165 respondents (73% HCPs and 27% patients/carers). These questions were reviewed and combined into 46 summary topics comprising: tendinopathy, distal biceps pathology, arthritis, stiffness, trauma, arthroplasty and cubital tunnel syndrome. The second (interim prioritisation) survey had 250 respondents (72% HCP and 28% patients/carers). The top 18 ranked questions from this survey were taken to the final workshop where a consensus was reached on the top 10 RPQs.ConclusionsThe top 10 RPQs highlight areas of importance that currently lack sufficient evidence to guide diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of elbow conditions. This collaborative process will guide researchers and funders regarding the topics that should receive most future attention and benefit patients and HCPs.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Jongsma, Karin Rolanda, and Megan M. Milota. "Establishing a multistakeholder research agenda: lessons learned from a James Lind Alliance Partnership." BMJ Open 12, no. 5 (May 2022): e059006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059006.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectiveThe James Lind Alliance (JLA) offers a method for better aligning health and care agenda’s with the needs of patients, carers and clinicians by bringing them together in a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). In this paper, we draw attention to crucial lessons learnt when establishing such a shared research agenda.Key argumentsHaving specific strategies and plans in place for maximising dialogic processes in a PSP can help facilitate and maintain trust, innovation and equal inclusion.ConclusionEight lessons learnt have been formulated, based on our observations and reflections on the JLA PSP and our expertise on patient participation and participatory research.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Hunter, Abby, Louise Ross, Toto Gronlund, and Sue Cooper. "UK Research Priorities for Electronic Cigarettes: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22 (November 17, 2020): 8500. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228500.

Full text

Abstract:

This study aimed to bring together people who smoke or vape, people who do not smoke and healthcare professionals to identify and agree priorities for electronic cigarette research in the UK. We carried out a priority setting partnership, guided by the methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance involving five key stages: initiation, consultation, collation, prioritisation and dissemination. A total of 765 people submitted 1887 questions that they wanted answered by research. Questions were organised into themes, merged and rewritten as summary questions, with 52 unique questions going forward to the prioritisation survey. Participants then ranked their top 10 questions. Following this ranking exercise, the top 26 were identified by selecting the most frequently prioritised questions adjusting for representative stakeholder group. These were put forward for discussion in the final prioritisation workshop, whereby the top 10 electronic cigarette research questions were agreed. The list of priorities identified will be of interest to researchers and funders of electronic cigarette research and will hopefully direct future research and funding calls. These priorities provide insight into the questions that matter to people who are using or concerned about e-cigarettes, including frontline professionals.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Rowbotham, N. J., S. Smith, M. McPhee, Z. C. Elliott, O. Rayner, P. A. Leighton, T. Daniels, et al. "EPS1.9 Question CF: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in cystic fibrosis." Journal of Cystic Fibrosis 16 (June 2017): S38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1569-1993(17)30282-5.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Nixon, Nancy A., Christine Simmons, Julie Lemieux, and Sunil Verma. "Research priorities in metastatic breast cancer: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." Breast Journal 26, no. 3 (March 2020): 488–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13525.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Jones, D. J., and S. T. Burden. "Priority setting for malnutrition and nutritional screening in healthcare: A James Lind Alliance." Clinical Nutrition ESPEN 35 (February 2020): 230–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2019.12.053.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Mathews, John A., Nicholas S. Kalson, Polly M. Tarrant, and Andrew D. Toms. "Top ten research priorities for problematic knee arthroplasty." Bone & Joint Journal 102-B, no. 9 (September 1, 2020): 1176–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.102b9.bjj-2020-0203.r1.

Full text

Abstract:

Aims The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty. Methods The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting. Results A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination. Conclusions The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Karantana, Alexia, Tim Davis, Donna Kennedy, Debbie Larson, Dominic Furniss, Douglas J. Grindlay, Katherine Cowan, Grey Giddins, Abhilash Jain, and Ryan W. Trickett. "Common hand and wrist conditions: creation of UK research priorities defined by a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." BMJ Open 11, no. 3 (March 2021): e044207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044207.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectivePrioritisation of important treatment uncertainties for ‘Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist’ via a UK-based James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.SettingThis process was funded by a national charitable organisation and based in the UK.ParticipantsAnyone with experience of common conditions affecting the adult hand and wrist, including patients, carers and healthcare professionals. All treatment modalities delivered by a hand specialist, including therapists, surgeons or other allied professionals, were considered.InterventionsEstablished James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership methods were employed.Electronic and paper questionnaires identified potential uncertainties. These were subsequently confirmed using relevant, up-to-date systematic reviews. A final list of top 10 research uncertainties was developed via a face-to-face workshop with representation from patients and clinicians. Impact of research was sought by surveying hand clinicians electronically.Outcome measuresThe survey responses and prioritisation—both survey and workshop based.ResultsThere were 889 individually submitted questions from the initial survey, refined to 59 uncertainties across 32 themes. Eight additional uncertainties were added from published literature before prioritisation by 261 participants and the workshop allowed the final top 10 list to be finalised. The top 10 has so far contributed to the award of over £3.8 million of competitively awarded funding.ConclusionsThe Common Conditions in the Hand and Wrist Priority Setting Partnership identified important research questions and has allowed research funders to identify grant applications which are important to both patients and clinicians

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Dean, Caitlin R., Hyke Bierma, Ria Clarke, Brian Cleary, Patricia Ellis, Roger Gadsby, Norah Gauw, et al. "A Patient-Clinician James Lind Alliance Partnership to Identify Research Priorities for Hyperemesis Gravidarum." Reproductive Toxicology 97 (October 2020): 2–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2020.04.028.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Dean, Caitlin R., Hyke Bierma, Ria Clarke, Brian Cleary, Patricia Ellis, Roger Gadsby, Norah Gauw, et al. "A patient–clinician James Lind Alliance partnership to identify research priorities for hyperemesis gravidarum." BMJ Open 11, no. 1 (January 2021): e041254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041254.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectiveThere are many uncertainties surrounding the aetiology, treatment and sequelae of hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). Prioritising research questions could reduce research waste, helping researchers and funders direct attention to those questions which most urgently need addressing. The HG priority setting partnership (PSP) was established to identify and rank the top 25 priority research questions important to both patients and clinicians.MethodsFollowing the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology, an HG PSP steering group was established. Stakeholders representing patients, carers and multidisciplinary professionals completed an online survey to gather uncertainties. Eligible uncertainties related to HG. Uncertainties on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and those on complementary treatments were not eligible. Questions were verified against the evidence. Two rounds of prioritisation included an online ranking survey and a 1-hour consensus workshop.Results1009 participants (938 patients/carers, 118 professionals with overlap between categories) submitted 2899 questions. Questions originated from participants in 26 different countries, and people from 32 countries took part in the first prioritisation stage. 66 unique questions emerged, which were evidence checked according to the agreed protocol. 65 true uncertainties were narrowed via an online ranking survey to 26 unranked uncertainties. The consensus workshop was attended by 19 international patients and clinicians who reached consensus on the top 10 questions for international researchers to address. More patients than professionals took part in the surveys but were equally distributed during the consensus workshop. Participants from low-income and middle-income countries noted that the priorities may be different in their settings.ConclusionsBy following the JLA method, a prioritised list of uncertainties relevant to both HG patients and their clinicians has been identified which can inform the international HG research agenda, funders and policy-makers. While it is possible to conduct an international PSP, results from developed countries may not be as relevant in low-income and middle-income countries.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Jones, D. J., C. Baldwin, S. Lal, E. Stanmore, K. Farrer, E. Connolly, C. E. Weekes, et al. "Priority setting for adult malnutrition and nutritional screening in healthcare: a James Lind Alliance." Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 33, no. 2 (December 20, 2019): 274–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12722.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Dean, Caitlin R., Hyke Bierma, Ria Clarke, Brian Cleary, Patricia Ellis, Roger Gadsby, Norah Gauw, et al. "A Patient-Clinician James Lind Alliance Partnership to Identify Research Priorities for Hyperemesis Gravidarum." Reproductive Toxicology 97 (October 2020): 2–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2020.04.028.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Ho, Alison, Louise Webster, Liza Bowen, Fiona Creighton, Sarah Findlay, Chris Gale, Marcus Green, et al. "Research priorities for pregnancy hypertension: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance." BMJ Open 10, no. 7 (July 2020): e036347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036347.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectivesTo identify research priorities for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy from individuals with lived experience and healthcare professionals.DesignProspective surveys and consensus meetings using principles outlined by the James Lind Alliance.SettingUK.MethodsA steering group was established and ‘uncertainties’ were gathered using an online survey and literature search. An interim online survey ranked long-listed questions and the top 10 research questions were reached by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop.ParticipantsWomen, partners, relatives and friends of those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension, researchers and healthcare professionals.ResultsThe initial online survey was answered by 278 participants (180 women with lived experience, 9 partners/relatives/friends, 71 healthcare professionals and 18 researchers). Together with a literature search, this identified 764 questions which were refined into 50 summary questions. All summary questions were presented in an interim prioritisation survey that was answered by 155 participants (87 women with lived experience, 4 partners/relatives/friends, 49 healthcare professionals and 15 researchers). The top 25 highest ranked questions were considered by the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 uncertainties were identified by consensus and ranked as follows in order of priority: long-term consequences of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), short-term complications of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), screening tests for pre-eclampsia, prevention of long-term problems (for the woman and baby), causes of pregnancy hypertension, prevention of recurrent pregnancy hypertension, educational needs of healthcare professionals, diagnosis of pre-eclampsia, management of pregnancy hypertension, provision of support for women and families.ConclusionsResearch priorities shared by those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension and healthcare professionals have been identified. Researchers should use these to inform the choice of future studies in this area.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Brett, Stephen, and Hannah Reay. "The James Lind Alliance Intensive Care Research Priority Setting Partnership: Why Another Research Prioritisation Exercise?!" Journal of the Intensive Care Society 14, no. 3 (July 2013): 204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/175114371301400305.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Simpson, R. C., S. M. Cooper, G. Kirtschig, S. Larsen, S. Lawton, M. McPhee, R. Murphy, et al. "Future research priorities for lichen sclerosus – results of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." British Journal of Dermatology 180, no. 5 (January 15, 2019): 1236–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjd.17447.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Partridge, Nick, and John Scadding. "The James Lind Alliance: patients and clinicians should jointly identify their priorities for clinical trials." Lancet 364, no. 9449 (November 2004): 1923–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17494-1.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Rankin, G., R. Summers, K. Cowan, I. Wellwood, and R. ten Hove. "Setting priorities for UK Physiotherapy research - a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP)." Physiotherapy 105 (January 2019): e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2018.11.265.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Goodridge, Donna, Britney Duncan, Katherine Cowan, Sarah Fang, Mark Fenton, Dave Parkalub, Jaimie Peters, Robert Skomro, Candace Skrapek, and Kendra Ulmer. "Top 10 research priorities for people with obstructive sleep apnoea, families and clinicians: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." Thorax 77, no. 5 (January 27, 2022): 511–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-218154.

Full text

Abstract:

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is associated with significant comorbidity, preventable accidents and reduced quality of life. Little is known about the research priorities of patients with OSA, family members and clinicians. A James Lind Alliance research priority setting partnership was conducted. An initial survey (690 respondents who generated 1110 questions), a prioritisation survey (250 respondents), and a final workshop were used to identify the top 10 research priorities. Consensus was achieved on the top-ranked research priorities. Our results will inform the efforts of funders, researchers and policy-makers to align directly with stakeholder priorities related to OSA.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Boland, Miriam, Agnes Higgins, Claire Beecher, Pat Bracken, Wendy Burn, Anne Cody, Adele Framer, et al. "Priorities for future research on reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines using a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership: The PROTECT study protocol." HRB Open Research 5 (November 10, 2022): 72. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13649.1.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: There is a growing number of service users looking to discontinue use of psychiatric medicines. Tapering is the recommended approach for reducing and/or discontinuing the use of psychiatric medicines. This involves gradually reducing the dose over time to minimise the potential for withdrawal symptoms. However, many uncertainties exist regarding the process of reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This study will use a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the Top 10 unanswered questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. Methods: The Priority Setting Partnership will be conducted using the James Lind Alliance methodology. It will involve seven stages: (i) creating an international Steering Group of representatives from key stakeholder groups that will include people with lived experience of taking and/or stopping psychiatric medicines, family members, carers/supporters and healthcare professionals, and identifying potential partners to support key activities (e.g. dissemination); (ii) gathering uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines from key stakeholders using an online survey; (iii) data processing and summarising the survey responses; (iv) checking the summary questions against existing evidence and verifying uncertainties; (v) shortlisting the questions using a second online survey; (vi) determining the Top 10 research questions through an online prioritisation workshop; (vii) disseminating results. Conclusions: This study will use a Priority Setting Partnership to generate a Top 10 list of research questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This list will help to guide future research and deliver responsive and strategic allocation of research resources, with a view to ultimately improving the future health and well-being of individuals who are taking psychiatric medicines.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Holmen, Heidi, Kirsti Riiser, Borghild Løyland, Ida Hellum Sandbekken, Kari Almendingen, Randi Andenæs, Ann Kristin Bjørnnes, et al. "Students’ top 10 priorities of research uncertainties on students’ sleep: a pragmatic James Lind Alliance approach." BMJ Open 11, no. 1 (January 2021): e043697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043697.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectivesInspired by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) user involvement approach, the aim of the present study was to identify the top 10 uncertainties for sleep research raised by students in higher education, and to discuss our experiences with adapting the JLA method to a student population.DesignThe study design is a pragmatic JLA approach, including a priority setting partnership within the field of sleep, collection of sleep-related research uncertainties as reported by students in higher education, sorting of the uncertainties and a final identification of the top 10 uncertainties through collaborative work between researchers, students, stakeholders and experts in the field. Uncertainties were collected using a one-question online survey: ‘as a student, which question(s) do you consider to be important with regards to sleep?’. A variety of approaches were applied to promote the survey to the students, including social media, radio, the university website, stands in university cafeterias and a sleep stunt. NVivo V.12 was used to code and sort the questions.SettingA higher education institution in Norway.Participants555 students.ResultsThe data collection provided 608 uncertainties, and the following prioritised top 10: (1) screen time, (2) stress, (3) educational achievements, (4) social relations, (5) mental health, (6) physical activity, (7) indoor environment, (8) substance abuse, (9) shift work and (10) sleep quality. Despite successful data collection, we found sleep to be a broad topic, and defining specific questions throughout the sorting and verification process proved difficult.ConclusionsWe identified the prioritised top 10 research uncertainties as reported by students in higher education, ranking screen time first. However, the process was time and resource consuming. The research uncertainties addressed by the students showed great diversity, characterised by heterogeneity and a lack of specificity, making verification of the uncertainties challenging.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Arulkumaran, Nishkantha, Hannah Reay, and Stephen J. Brett. "Research priorities by professional background – A detailed analysis of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." Journal of the Intensive Care Society 17, no. 2 (October 30, 2015): 111–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1751143715609954.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Rankin, G., K. Barker, K. Cowan, B. Fashanu, K. Jones, A. Lane, F. Moran, R. Summers, and I. Wellwood. "Identifying priorities for physiotherapy research in the UK: the James Lind Alliance Physiotherapy Priority Setting Partnership." Physiotherapy 103 (December 2017): e150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2017.11.147.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Rankin, Gabrielle, Rachael Summers, Katherine Cowan, Karen Barker, Kate Button, Sean Paul Carroll, Billy Fashanu, et al. "Identifying Priorities for Physiotherapy Research in the UK: the James Lind Alliance Physiotherapy Priority Setting Partnership." Physiotherapy 107 (June 2020): 161–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2019.07.006.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Zhong, Toni, Anisha Mahajan, Katherine Cowan, Claire Temple-Oberle, Geoff Porter, Martin LeBlanc, and Kelly Metcalfe. "Identifying the top research priorities in postmastectomy breast cancer reconstruction: a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership." BMJ Open 11, no. 8 (August 2021): e047589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047589.

Full text

Abstract:

BackgroundMajor improvements in breast cancer treatment in the last decade include advancements in postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR). Unfortunately, the studies in PMBR are primarily researcher or industry led with minimal input from patients and caregivers. The aim of this study is to use the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to bring together the patients, caregivers and clinicians in a priority setting partnership to identify the most important unanswered research questions in PMBR.MethodsThe JLA priority setting methodology involved four key stages: gathering research questions on PMBR from patients, caregivers and clinicians; checking these research questions against existing evidence; interim prioritisation and a final consensus meeting to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions using the modified nominal group methodology.ResultsIn stage 1, 3168 research questions were submitted from 713 respondents across Canada, of which 73% of the participants were patients or caregivers. Stage 2 confirmed that there were a total of 48 unique unanswered questions. In stage three, 488 individuals completed the interim prioritisation survey and the top 25 questions were taken to a final consensus meeting. In the final stage, the top 10 unanswered research questions were determined. They cover a breadth of topics including personalised surgical treatment, safety of implants and newer techniques, access to PMBR, breast cancer recurrence and rehabilitation.InterpretationIdentification of the top 10 unanswered research questions is an important first step to generating relevant and impactful research that will ultimately improve the PMBR experience for patients with breast cancer.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Fackrell, Kathryn, Linda Stratmann, Veronica Kennedy, Carol MacDonald, Hilary Hodgson, Nic Wray, Carolyn Farrell, et al. "Identifying and prioritising unanswered research questions for people with hyperacusis: James Lind Alliance Hyperacusis Priority Setting Partnership." BMJ Open 9, no. 11 (November 2019): e032178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032178.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo determine research priorities in hyperacusis that key stakeholders agree are the most important.Design/settingA priority setting partnership using two international surveys, and a UK prioritisation workshop, adhering to the six-staged methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance.ParticipantsPeople with lived experience of hyperacusis, parents/carers, family and friends, educational professionals and healthcare professionals who support and/or treat adults and children who experience hyperacusis, including but not limited to surgeons, audiologists, psychologists and hearing therapists.MethodsThe priority setting partnership was conducted from August 2017 to July 2018. An international identification survey asked respondents to submit any questions/uncertainties about hyperacusis. Uncertainties were categorised, refined and rephrased into representative indicative questions using thematic analysis techniques. These questions were verified as ‘unanswered’ through searches of current evidence. A second international survey asked respondents to vote for their top 10 priority questions. A shortlist of questions that represented votes from all stakeholder groups was prioritised into a top 10 at the final prioritisation workshop (UK).ResultsIn the identification survey, 312 respondents submitted 2730 uncertainties. Of those uncertainties, 593 were removed as out of scope, and the remaining were refined into 85 indicative questions. None of the indicative questions had already been answered in research. The second survey collected votes from 327 respondents, which resulted in a shortlist of 28 representative questions for the final workshop. Consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities for future research, including identifying causes and underlying mechanisms, effective management and training for healthcare professionals.ConclusionsThese priorities were identified and shaped by people with lived experience, parents/carers and healthcare professionals, and as such are an essential resource for directing future research in hyperacusis. Researchers and funders should focus on addressing these priorities.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Morris, Rebecca Lauren, Susan Jill Stocks, Rahul Alam, Sian Taylor, Carly Rolfe, Steven William Glover, Joanne Whitcombe, and Stephen M. Campbell. "Identifying primary care patient safety research priorities in the UK: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." BMJ Open 8, no. 2 (February 2018): e020870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020870.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectivesTo identify the top 10 unanswered research questions for primary care patient safety research.DesignA modified nominal group technique.SettingUK.ParticipantsAnyone with experience of primary care including: patients, carers and healthcare professionals. 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals submitted questions.Main outcomesA top 10, and top 30, future research questions for primary care patient safety.Results443 research questions were submitted by 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals, through a national survey. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 173 questions were collated into themes. The themes were largely focused on communication, team and system working, interfaces across primary and secondary care, medication, self-management support and technology. The questions were then prioritised through a national survey, the top 30 questions were taken forward to the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 research questions focused on the most vulnerable in society, holistic whole-person care, safer communication and coordination between care providers, work intensity, continuity of care, suicide risk, complex care at home and confidentiality.ConclusionsThis study was the first national prioritisation exercise to identify patient and healthcare professional priorities for primary care patient safety research. The research priorities identified a range of important gaps in the existing evidence to inform everyday practice to address primary care patient safety.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Aldiss, Susie, Lorna A. Fern, Robert S. Phillips, Amy Callaghan, Karen Dyker, Helen Gravestock, Michael Groszmann, et al. "Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance." BMJ Open 9, no. 8 (July 2019): e028119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028119.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectivesTo conduct a UK-wide survey of young people who have experienced cancer, carers and professionals, to identify and prioritise research questions to inform decisions of research funders and support the case for research with this unique cancer population.DesignJames Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.SettingUK health service and community.MethodsA steering group oversaw the initiative and partner organisations were recruited. Unanswered questions were collected in an online survey. Evidence searching verified uncertainties. An interim survey was used to rank questions prior to a final prioritisation workshop.ParticipantsYoung people aged 13–24 years with a current or previous cancer diagnosis, their families, friends, partners and professionals who work with this population.ResultsTwo hundred and ninety-two respondents submitted 855 potential questions. Following a refining process and removal of ‘out of scope’ questions, 208 unique questions remained. Systematic evidence checking identified seven answered questions and 16 were the subject of ongoing studies. The interim survey was completed by 174 participants. The top 30 questions were prioritised at a workshop attended by 25 young people, parents and multidisciplinary professionals. The top three priorities are: (1) What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning and mental health during and after treatment? (2) What interventions, including self-care, can reduce or reverse adverse short-term and long-term effects of cancer treatment? (3) What are the best strategies to improve access to clinical trials? The remaining questions reflect the complete cancer pathway: new therapies, life after cancer, support, education/employment, relapse and end-of-life care.ConclusionsWe have identified shared research priorities for young people with cancer using a rigorous, person-centred approach involving stakeholders typically not involved in setting the research agenda. The breadth of priorities suggest future research should focus on holistic and psychosocial care delivery as well as traditional drug/biology research.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Peeks, Fabian, Willemijn F. Boonstra, Lut Baere, Camilla Carøe, Thomas Casswall, Damián Cohen, Katherine Cowan, et al. "Research priorities for liver glycogen storage disease: An international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance." Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease 43, no. 2 (November 13, 2019): 279–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jimd.12178.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Drury, Nigel E., Clare P. Herd, Giovanni Biglino, Katherine L. Brown, Louise Coats, Michael J. Cumper, Rafael R. Guerrero, et al. "Research priorities in children and adults with congenital heart disease: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." Open Heart 9, no. 2 (November 2022): e002147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2022-002147.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo bring together patients, parents, charities and clinicians in a Priority Setting Partnership to establish national clinical priorities for research in children and adults with congenital heart disease.MethodsThe established James Lind Alliance methodology was used to identify and prioritise research on the management of congenital heart disease, focusing on diagnosis, treatment and outcomes. An initial open survey was used to gather potential uncertainties which were filtered, categorised, converted into summary questions and checked against current evidence. In a second survey, respondents identified the unanswered questions most important to them. At two final workshops, patients, parents, charities and healthcare professionals agreed the top 10 lists of priorities for child/antenatal and adult congenital heart disease research.Results524 respondents submitted 1373 individual questions, from which 313 out of scope or duplicate questions were removed. The remaining 1060 questions were distilled into summary questions and checked against existing literature, with only three questions deemed entirely answered and removed. 250 respondents completed the child/antenatal survey (56 uncertainties) and 252 completed the adult survey (47 uncertainties). The questions ranked the highest by clinicians and non-clinicians were taken forward to consensus workshops, where two sets of top 10 research priorities were agreed.ConclusionsThrough an established and equitable process, we determined national clinical priorities for congenital heart disease research. These will be taken forward by specific working groups, a national patient and public involvement group, and through the establishment of a UK and Ireland network for collaborative, multicentre clinical trials in congenital heart disease.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Rowbotham, Nicola J., Sherie Smith, Paul A. Leighton, Oli C. Rayner, Katie Gathercole, Zoe C. Elliott, Edward F. Nash, et al. "The top 10 research priorities in cystic fibrosis developed by a partnership between people with CF and healthcare providers." Thorax 73, no. 4 (August 4, 2017): 388–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210473.

Full text

Abstract:

There remain many treatment uncertainties in cystic fibrosis (CF). With limited resources, research should focus on questions which are most important to the CF community. We conducted a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in CF. Research questions were elicited and then prioritised in successive surveys. A workshop agreed the final top 10. Online methods avoided cross infection and widened participation. The elicitation survey had 482 respondents (1080 questions) and prioritisation survey 677 respondents. Participants were drawn equally from the patient and clinical communities globally. We have achieved a consensus on 10 research priorities which will be attractive to funders.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Hall, Deborah A., Najibah Mohamad, Lester Firkins, Mark Fenton, and David Stockdale. "Identifying and prioritizing unmet research questions for people with tinnitus: the James Lind Alliance Tinnitus Priority Setting Partnership." Clinical Investigation 3, no. 1 (January 2013): 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/cli.12.129.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Bretherton, Christopher Patrick, Henry A. Claireaux, Jonathan Gower, Shan Martin, Angela Thornhill, Louise Johnson, Lucy Silvester, et al. "Research priorities for the management of complex fractures: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance." BMJ Open 11, no. 11 (November 2021): e057198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057198.

Full text

Abstract:

ObjectiveTo determine research priorities for the management of complex fractures, which represent the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals.Design/settingA national (UK) research priority setting partnership.ParticipantsPeople who have experienced a complex fracture, their carers and relatives, and relevant healthcare professionals and clinical academics involved in treating patients with complex fractures. The scope includes open fractures, fractures to joints broken into multiple pieces, multiple concomitant fractures and fractures involving the pelvis and acetabulum.MethodsA multiphase priority setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 21 months (October 2019 to June 2021). A national survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second national survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 18 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where a consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities.ResultsA total of 532 uncertainties, submitted by 158 respondents (including 33 patients/carers) were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 58 unique indicative questions, of which all 58 were judged to be true uncertainties after review of the existing evidence. 136 people (including 56 patients/carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 18 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions.ConclusionsThe top 10 research priorities for complex fracture include questions regarding rehabilitation, complications, psychological support and return to life-roles. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research complex fractures over the coming decade.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Gill, Peter, P. Bayliss, Karen Breen-Reid, Francine Buchanan, Kim De Castris-Garcia, Mairead Green, Shelley Frappier, et al. "74 Patient-oriented research priorities for pediatric hospital care in Canada: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." Paediatrics & Child Health 27, Supplement_3 (October 1, 2022): e35-e35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxac100.073.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Background The largest population of paediatric patients cared for in hospital are those with medical conditions managed in general paediatric inpatient units (GPIUs). Despite the large burden, there is a lack of high-quality research focused on the care of children and youth admitted to GPIUs. The Canadian Paediatric Inpatient Research Network (PIRN) was launched in 2019 to generate evidence to improve the care and outcomes for hospitalized children in GPIUs. To help establish a future research agenda, PIRN brought together clinicians, youth, patients and caregivers to identify important clinical management questions about the care of children in hospital. Objectives To conduct a research priority setting study to identify the most important unanswered clinical management research questions about paediatric hospital care in GPIUs that are important to patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Design/Methods Established James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership methodology was utilized for this project, which was overseen by a Steering Group composed of patient partners, (youth, parents of patients) and clinicians (nurses, and paediatricians) (n=10), facilitated by a JLA Adviser. In phase 1, an online REDCap survey was administered to collect unanswered research questions regarding paediatric hospital care via 3 open-ended questions. Responses from the phase 1 survey went through a detailed evidence checking process. Subsequently, unanswered research questions were brought forward to a phase 2 interim prioritization online REDCap survey. A final list of top 10 unanswered research questions pertaining to paediatric hospital care was established at the final priority setting workshop. Results The phase 1 survey was completed by 188 participants and generated 495 unanswered research questions and comments, of which 58 were deemed out of scope. The remaining 437 responses were grouped into themes (e.g., hospital policy, communication, shared-decision making, health service delivery and health service management), and then refined to 75 unanswered research questions. Of these 75, 4 questions had sufficient evidence, and 21 were submitted by only one respondent. Fifty unanswered research questions were included in the phase 2 survey, which was completed by 201 participants. The top 16 questions – the top 10 from both patient partners (youth, parents of patients) and clinicians respectively – were presented at the final priority setting workshop and the top 10 questions were prioritized (Table 1). The top 10 questions focus on the care of special inpatient populations (e.g. children with medical complexity), communication, shared-decision making, support strategies, mental health supports, shortening length of stay, and supporting Indigenous patients, parents and families. Conclusion The top 10 unanswered questions on paediatric hospital care will help guide future research. PIRN will use these prioritized questions to generate scientific knowledge to improve the outcomes of hospitalized children and youth in GPIUs through the conduct of patient-oriented research.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Reay, Hannah, Nishkantha Arulkumaran, and Stephen J. Brett. "Priorities for Future Intensive Care Research in the UK: Results of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." Journal of the Intensive Care Society 15, no. 4 (October 2014): 288–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/175114371401500405.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Rangan, Amar, Sheela Upadhaya, Sandra Regan, Francine Toye, and Jonathan L. Rees. "Research priorities for shoulder surgery: results of the 2015 James Lind Alliance patient and clinician priority setting partnership." BMJ Open 6, no. 4 (April 2016): e010412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010412.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Majeed-Ariss, R., M. McPhee, C. Bundy, C. E. M. Griffiths, and H. Young. "Developing a protocol to identify and prioritize research questions for psoriasis: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." British Journal of Dermatology 178, no. 6 (March 31, 2018): 1383–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15992.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Majeed-Ariss, R., M. McPhee, C. Bundy, C. E. M. Griffiths, and H. Young. "Developing a protocol to identify and prioritize research questions for psoriasis: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership." British Journal of Dermatology 178, no. 6 (June 2018): e439-e439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16747.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Hibbs, Stephen P., Susan J. Brunskill, Graham C. Donald, Heather D. Saunders, and Michael F. Murphy. "Setting priorities for research in blood donation and transfusion: outcome of the James Lind Alliance priority‐setting partnership." Transfusion 59, no. 2 (December 2, 2018): 574–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.15077.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Richards, Hollie, Robert Staruch, Anni King, Catrin Pugh, Suzannah Kinsella, Jelena Savović, and Amber Young. "Protocol for a Global Burns Research Priority Setting Partnership to agree the most important unanswered questions in international burns care." BMJ Open 12, no. 9 (September 2022): e065120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065120.

Full text

Abstract:

IntroductionBurns affect 11 million people globally and can result in long-term disability with substantial associated healthcare costs. There is limited research funding to support trials to provide evidence for clinical decision-making. Research prioritisation ensures that research focuses on the topics most important to stakeholders, addressing issues of research waste and evidence gaps. The aim of this project is to agree the global top 10 research priorities important to international patients, carers and clinicians from all income status countries.Methods and analysisThe Global Burns Research Priority Setting Partnership will use James Lind Alliance methods to establish the top 10 research priorities in global burns care. An initial international online multilingual survey will collect candidate research priorities from stakeholders. To increase equity in participation, the survey will also be available via the social media app WhatsApp. Additionally, interviews will be conducted. Data will be analysed to identify and collate research questions and to verify that the priorities are true clinical uncertainties. This list will then be ranked by stakeholders in order of importance via a second online survey. Finally, a consensus meeting will identify the top 10 research priorities.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Bristol Medical School Faculty Ethical Committee has approved this project. Research into burn care should be prioritised to ensure that funding is focused where most needed. This should be undertaken internationally, to ensure inclusion of the views of professionals and patients from lower income countries, where the incidence of thermal burns is highest. The involvement of the James Lind Alliance will ensure that the methodology is robust and that the patient voice is heard. The final top 10 priorities will be disseminated to funders, governments and researchers internationally to inform future global burns research.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'James Lind Alliance'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles