Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals following the James Lind Alliance methodology.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritise important research questions for miscarriage. DESIGN: A priority setting partnership using prospective surveys and consensus meetings following methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. SETTING: UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women and those affected by miscarriage working alongside healthcare professionals. RESULTS: In the initial survey, 1093 participants (932 women who have experienced miscarriage, 8 partners, 17 family members, friends or colleagues, 104 healthcare professionals and eight charitable organisations) submitted 3279 questions. A review of existing literature identified a further 64. Non-questions were removed, and the remaining questions were categorised and summarised into 58 questions. In an interim electronic survey, 2122 respondents chose their top 10 priorities from the 58 summary questions. The 25 highest ranked in the survey were prioritised at a final face-to-face workshop. In summary, the top 10 priorities were ranked as follows: research into preventative treatment, emotional aspects in general, investigation, relevance of pre-existing medical conditions, emotional support as a treatment, importance of lifestyle factors, importance of genetic and chromosomal causes, preconception tests, investigation after different numbers of miscarriage and male causal factors. CONCLUSIONS: These results should be the focus of future miscarriage research. Presently, studies are being conducted to address the top priority; however, many other priorities, especially psychological and emotional support, are less well researched areas. We hope our results will encourage both researchers and funders to focus on these priorities.

Identifying research priorities in anaesthesia and perioperative care: final report of the joint National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia/James Lind Alliance Research Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVE: To identify research priorities for Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine. DESIGN: Prospective surveys and consensus meetings guided by an independent adviser. SETTING: UK. PARTICIPANTS: 45 stakeholder organisations (25 professional, 20 patient/carer) affiliated as James Lind Alliance partners. OUTCOMES: First 'ideas-gathering' survey: Free text research ideas and suggestions. Second 'prioritisation' survey: Shortlist of 'summary' research questions (derived from the first survey) ranked by respondents in order of priority. Final 'top ten': Agreed by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: First survey: 1420 suggestions received from 623 respondents (49% patients/public) were refined into a shortlist of 92 'summary' questions. Second survey: 1718 respondents each nominated up to 10 questions as research priorities. Top ten: The 25 highest-ranked questions advanced to the final workshop, where 23 stakeholders (13 professional, 10 patient/carer) agreed the 10 most important questions: ▸ What can we do to stop patients developing chronic pain after surgery? ▸ How can patient care around the time of emergency surgery be improved? ▸ What long-term harm may result from anaesthesia, particularly following repeated anaesthetics?▸ What outcomes should we use to measure the 'success' of anaesthesia and perioperative care? ▸ How can we improve recovery from surgery for elderly patients? ▸ For which patients does regional anaesthesia give better outcomes than general anaesthesia? ▸ What are the effects of anaesthesia on the developing brain? ▸ Do enhanced recovery programmes improve short and long-term outcomes? ▸ How can preoperative exercise or fitness training, including physiotherapy, improve outcomes after surgery? ▸ How can we improve communication between the teams looking after patients throughout their surgical journey? CONCLUSIONS: Almost 2000 stakeholders contributed their views regarding anaesthetic and perioperative research priorities. This is the largest example of patient and public involvement in shaping anaesthetic and perioperative research to date.

National and regional asthma programmes in Europe.

This review presents seven national asthma programmes to support the European Asthma Research and Innovation Partnership in developing strategies to reduce asthma mortality and morbidity across Europe. From published data it appears that in order to influence asthma care, national/regional asthma programmes are more effective than conventional treatment guidelines. An asthma programme should start with the universal commitments of stakeholders at all levels and the programme has to be endorsed by political and governmental bodies. When the national problems have been identified, the goals of the programme have to be clearly defined with measures to evaluate progress. An action plan has to be developed, including defined re-allocation of patients and existing resources, if necessary, between primary care and specialised healthcare units or hospital centres. Patients should be involved in guided self-management education and structured follow-up in relation to disease severity. The three evaluated programmes show that, thanks to rigorous efforts, it is possible to improve patients' quality of life and reduce hospitalisation, asthma mortality, sick leave and disability pensions. The direct and indirect costs, both for the individual patient and for society, can be significantly reduced. The results can form the basis for development of further programme activities in Europe.

Patient-reported side effects, concerns and adherence to corticosteroid treatment for asthma, and comparison with physician estimates of side-effect prevalence: a UK-wide, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Non-adherence to corticosteroid treatment has been shown to reduce treatment efficacy, thus compromising asthma control. AIMS: To examine the experiences of treatment side effects, treatment concerns and adherence to inhaled (ICS) and oral corticosteroids (OCS) among people with asthma and to identify the degree of concordance between clinician estimates of side effects and the prevalence reported by patients. METHODS: Asthma UK members were sent validated questionnaires assessing treatment concerns, experiences of side effects and adherence. Questionnaires measuring clinicians' estimates of the prevalence of corticosteroid side effects were completed online. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 1,524 people taking ICS, 233 taking OCS and 244 clinicians (67% of clinicians were primary care nurses). Among people with asthma, 64% of those taking ICS and 88% of those taking OCS reported ⩾ 1 side effect. People reporting high adherence to ICS (t = -3.09, P<0.005) and those reporting low adherence to OCS (t = 1.86, P < 0.05; one-tailed test) reported more side effects. There was a disparity between clinicians' estimates of the frequency of side effects and the frequency reported by people with asthma: e.g., although 46% of people taking ICS reported sore throat, clinicians estimated that this figure would be 10%. Patients who reported side effects had stronger concerns about both ICS (r = 0.46, P < 0.0001) and OCS (r = 0.50, P < 0.0001). Concerns about corticosteroids were associated with low adherence to ICS (t = 6.90, P < 0.0001) and OCS (t = 1.71; P < 0.05; one-tailed test). CONCLUSIONS: An unexpectedly large proportion of people with asthma experienced side effects and had strong concerns about their treatment, which compromised adherence. These findings have implications for the design of interventions to optimise asthma control through improved adherence.

Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity's funding strategies: the case of Asthma UK.

BACKGROUND: Debate is intensifying about how to assess the full range of impacts from medical research. Complexity increases when assessing the diverse funding streams of funders such as Asthma UK, a charitable patient organisation supporting medical research to benefit people with asthma. This paper aims to describe the various impacts identified from a range of Asthma UK research, and explore how Asthma UK utilised the characteristics of successful funding approaches to inform future research strategies. METHODS: We adapted the Payback Framework, using it both in a survey and to help structure interviews, documentary analysis, and case studies. We sent surveys to 153 lead researchers of projects, plus 10 past research fellows, and also conducted 14 detailed case studies. These covered nine projects and two fellowships, in addition to the innovative case studies on the professorial chairs (funded since 1988) and the MRC-Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma (the 'Centre') which together facilitated a comprehensive analysis of the whole funding portfolio. We organised each case study to capture whatever academic and wider societal impacts (or payback) might have arisen given the diverse timescales, size of funding involved, and extent to which Asthma UK funding contributed to the impacts. RESULTS: Projects recorded an average of four peer-reviewed journal articles. Together the chairs reported over 500 papers. All streams of funding attracted follow-on funding. Each of the various categories of societal impacts arose from only a minority of individual projects and fellowships. Some of the research portfolio is influencing asthma-related clinical guidelines, and some contributing to product development. The latter includes potentially major breakthroughs in asthma therapies (in immunotherapy, and new inhaled drugs) trialled by university spin-out companies. Such research-informed guidelines and medicines can, in turn, contribute to health improvements. The role of the chairs and the pioneering collaborative Centre is shown as being particularly important. CONCLUSIONS: We systematically demonstrate that all types of Asthma UK's research funding assessed are making impacts at different levels, but the main societal impacts from projects and fellowships come from a minority of those funded. Asthma UK used the study's findings, especially in relation to the Centre, to inform research funding strategies to promote the achievement of impact.