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

PURPOSE: To 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. METHODS: Research 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: This 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.

Between Public Guidelines for User Involvement and Ideals About Free Research: Using Collaborative Autoethnography to Explore Researcher Experiences From a User Involvement Process.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: User participation is a prerequisite for receiving research funding in healthcare in Norway. Despite many positive benefits, studies report challenges from users' and researchers' perspectives. Limited knowledge exists concerning researchers' experiences in scenarios where the users are professionals within healthcare and research. The aim of this retrospective study was to explore and reflect on personal experiences as researchers from a process of planning and developing research questions for a PhD project, following the James Lind Alliance guidelines, which were a requirement for funding. We focused on how the process of collaboration with a specific group of users influenced the researchers' sense of selves. DESIGN AND METHOD: We used a qualitative design based on collaborative autoethnography, exploring personal experiences from a sociocultural point of view. Two of the three researchers in the team recollected their experiences from the user involvement process while applying the James Lind Alliance guidelines. We used different data sources to develop two autoethnographic narratives. The narratives were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The autoethnographic narratives demonstrate the complexity of user involvement from the researchers' perspectives. We identified four themes in the analysis: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, competing paradigms, hierarchy and dual roles. The accounts illustrated the researchers' ambivalence within the process, indicating that they feared a loss of control over the direction of the research project. The narratives visualised a struggle to appear as credible researchers, illustrating how the involvement of a specific group of users and adherence to a specific guideline for user involvement influenced the researchers' experiences of their roles and identities in the collaboration. CONCLUSION: The results point to the relevance of the sociocultural backdrop; researchers might become frontline providers of policy implementation in research, balancing tensions between regulatory constraints, user involvement and researchers' professional identity and research ideals, when a specific, detailed procedure for user involvement is required. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two user panels comprising participants from clinical practice, education and research, along with a service user, collaborated in the planning and development of research questions for a PhD project. This autoethnographic study elaborates this process.

Identifying research priorities in breast cancer surgery: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

PURPOSE: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership was developed to identify research priorities in breast cancer surgery from individuals with lived experience, at high genetic risk of breast cancer, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: 'Uncertainties' were collected using an online survey. Following an evidence check and development of summary questions, an interim survey asked participants to rank their top 10 research priorities from the question list. Top-ranked questions from patient/carer, high-risk and professional groups were carried forward for discussion to a final online prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: 260 participants (101 patients/carers, 156 HCPs) submitted 940 uncertainties via the initial survey. These were analysed thematically into 128 summary questions in six topic areas. Following evidence checking, 59 questions were included in the interim survey which was completed by 572 respondents. Marked differences were seen in questions prioritised by patients/carers, HCPs and women at high-risk. The top eight priorities in patient/carer and professional groups and top two priorities for high-risk women were carried forward to the online workshop at which 22 participants discussed and agreed the final top 10. Key themes included de-escalation of breast and axillary surgery, factors impacting the development/detection of locoregional recurrence and optimal provision of support for informed treatment decision-making. CONCLUSION: The top 10 research priorities in breast cancer surgery have been agreed. However, the observed differences in research priorities identified by patients and professional groups were not anticipated. Top priorities from both groups should inform future UK breast cancer surgical research, to ensure that it addresses questions that are important to breast cancer community as a whole.

The top 10 research priorities in psoriatic arthritis: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and prioritize the top 10 research questions for PsA. METHODS: The British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians, supported by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). This PSP followed the established three-stage JLA process: first, an online survey of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians to identify PsA questions, asking, 'What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?' The questions were checked against existing evidence to establish 'true uncertainties' and grouped as 'indicative questions' reflecting the overarching themes. Then a second online survey ranked the 'true uncertainties' by importance. Finally, a workshop including people living with PsA and clinician stakeholders finalized the top 10 research priorities. RESULTS: The initial survey attracted 317 respondents (69% people living with PsA, 15% carers), with 988 questions. This generated 46 indicative questions. In the second survey, 422 respondents (78% people living with PsA, 4% carers) prioritized these. Eighteen questions were taken forward to the final online workshop. The top unanswered PsA research question was 'What is the best strategy for managing patients with psoriatic arthritis including non-drug and drug treatments?' Other top 10 priorities covered diagnosis, prognosis, outcome assessment, flares, comorbidities and other aspects of treatment (https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk). CONCLUSION: The top 10 priorities will guide PsA research and enable PsA researchers and those who fund research to know the most important questions for people living with PsA.

Identifying the asthma research priorities of people with asthma, their carers and other stakeholders.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: People living with asthma, their carers, clinicians and policymakers are the end-users of research and need research that address their individual healthcare needs. We aimed to understand the research priorities of end-users of asthma research. METHODS: A national cross-sectional mixed-methods study was conducted. The study included an online survey that engaged patients, carers, healthcare professionals and policymakers to provide statements to free-text questions about what they would like to see answered by research to improve living with asthma on a day-to-day basis. Responses where thematically analysed followed by three online priority setting consensus workshops. RESULTS: There were 593 respondents who provided 1446 text comments. Participants prioritized 10 asthma research themes which were: (1) asthma in children, (2) COVID 19 and asthma, (3) asthma care and self-management, (4) diagnosis and medication, (5) managing asthma attacks, (6) causes, prevention and features of asthma, (7) mental health, (8) asthma and ageing, (9) severe asthma, (10) asthma and other health conditions. Each theme comprises specific research questions. CONCLUSION: This project successfully established 10 priority research themes for asthma, reflecting the collective voice of the end-users of this research. These novel data can be used to address the documented mismatch in research prioritization between the research community and the end-users of research.

Research priorities to prevent and treat diabetic foot ulcers-A digital James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

AIM: To establish outcomes of a priority setting partnership between participants with diabetes mellitus and clinicians to identify the top 10 research priorities for preventing and treating diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). METHODS: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process was adapted into a digital format which involved a pilot survey to identify understandable uncertainties with high relevance for participants tested by calculating the content validity index; a main survey answered by 53 participants living with diabetes and 49 clinicians; and a final digital workshop to process and prioritise the final top 10 research priorities. RESULTS: The content validity index was satisfactory for 20 out of 25 uncertainties followed by minor changes and one additional uncertainty. After we processed the 26 uncertainties from the main survey and seven current guidelines, a list of 28 research uncertainties remained for review and discussion in the digital workshop. The final top 10 research priorities included the organisation of diabetes care; screening of diabetes, impaired blood circulation, neuropathy, and skin properties; vascular surgical treatment; importance of self-care; help from significant others; pressure relief; and prevention of infection. CONCLUSION: The top 10 research priorities for preventing and treating DFUs represent consensus areas from persons living with diabetes and clinicians to guide future research. These research priorities can justify and inform strategic allocation of research funding. The digitalisation of James Lind Alliance methodology was feasible.

Research agenda setting with children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Lessons learned.

AIM: The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the research priorities of Dutch children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) as well as researching how children can be involved. BACKGROUND: Several health research agendas have successfully been developed with adults but rarely with children. Children are still seldom recognized as possessing credible knowledge about their own body and life. This research project with focus group discussions and interviews with children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) was an innovative addition to a nationwide prioritization of research questions of patients with JIA, their carers and health care professionals, based on the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology. RESULTS: Children with JIA appreciated being invited to give their opinion on JIA research prioritization as knowledgeable actors. They have clear views on what topics need most attention. They want more insight on how to medically and socially treat JIA so that they can better fulfil their aspirations at school, later in work and with their relationships. CONCLUSION: We have identified the Top 5 research priorities for children with JIA. Most priorities are unique and differ from the priorities of the adolescents and young adults, parents and healthcare professionals in the main JLA priority setting exercise. Ultimately, two of the children's priorities were included in the final JLA Top 10.

Identifying key priorities for research to protect the consumer with food hypersensitivity: A UK Food Standards Agency Priority Setting Exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Food hypersensitivity (FHS), including food allergy, coeliac disease and food intolerance, is a major public health issue. The Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent UK Government department working to protect public health and consumers' wider interests in food, sought to identify research priorities in the area of FHS. METHODS: A priority setting exercise was undertaken, using a methodology adapted from the James Lind Alliance-the first such exercise with respect to food hypersensitivity. A UK-wide public consultation was held to identify unanswered research questions. After excluding diagnostics, desensitization treatment and other questions which were out of scope for FSA or where FSA was already commissioning research, 15 indicative questions were identified and prioritized by a range of stakeholders, representing food businesses, patient groups, health care and academia, local authorities and the FSA. RESULTS: 295 responses were received during the public consultation, which were categorized into 70 sub-questions and used to define 15 key evidence uncertainties ('indicative questions') for prioritization. Using the JLA prioritization framework, this resulted in 10 priority uncertainties in evidence, from which 16 research questions were developed. These could be summarized under the following 5 themes: communication of allergens both within the food supply chain and then to the end consumer (ensuring trust in allergen communication); the impact of socio-economic factors on consumers with FHS; drivers of severe reactions; mechanism(s) underlying loss of tolerance in FHS; and the risks posed by novel allergens/processing. DISCUSSION: In this first research prioritization exercise for food allergy and FHS, key priorities identified to protect the food-allergic public were strategies to help allergic consumers to make confident food choices, prevention of FHS and increasing understanding of socio-economic impacts. Diagnosis and treatment of FHS was not considered in this prioritization.

Reporting the whole story: Analysis of the 'out-of-scope' questions from the James Lind Alliance Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Survey.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a UK-wide survey to identify the top 10 research questions for young people's cancer. We conducted secondary analysis of questions submitted, which were 'out-of-scope' of the original survey aim. We sought to disseminate these questions, to inform practice, policy and the development of potential interventions to support young people with cancer. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 13-24 with a current/previous cancer diagnosis, their families/friends/partners and professionals who work with this population. METHODS: Eight hundred and fifty-five potential research questions were submitted, and 326 were classified as 'out-of-scope'. These questions, along with 49 'free-text' comments, were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The 375 out-of-scope questions and comments were submitted by: 68 young people, 81 family members/partners/friends and 42 professionals. Ten overarching themes were identified: diagnostic experience; communication; coordination of care; information needs and lack of information; service provision; long-term effects and aftercare support; family support; financial impact; end-of life care; and research methods and current research. CONCLUSIONS: The need to tailor services, information and communication is a striking thread evidenced across the 'out-of-scope' questions. Gaps in information highlight implications for practice in revisiting information needs throughout the cancer trajectory. We must advocate for specialist care for young people and promote the research priorities and these findings to funding bodies, charities, young people and health and social care policymakers, in order to generate an evidence base to inform effective interventions across the cancer trajectory and improve outcomes. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: Patients and carers were equal stakeholders throughout.

Research priorities for liver glycogen storage disease: An international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

The international liver glycogen storage disease (GSD) priority setting partnership (IGSDPSP) was established to identify the top research priorities in this area. The multiphase methodology followed the principles of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) guidebook. An international scoping survey in seven languages was distributed to patients, carers, and healthcare professionals to gather uncertainties, which were consolidated into summary questions. The existing literature was reviewed to ensure that the summary questions had not yet been answered. A second survey asked responders to prioritize these summary questions. A final shortlist of 22 questions was discussed during an international multi-stakeholder workshop, and a consensus was reached on the top 11 priorities using an adapted nominal group technique.In the first survey, a total of 1388 questions were identified from 763 responders from 58 countries. These original uncertainties were refined into 72 summary questions for a second prioritization survey. In total 562 responders from 58 countries answered the second survey. From the second survey, the top 10 for patients, carers and healthcare professionals was identified and this shortlist of 22 questions was taken to the final workshop. During the final workshop, participants identified the worldwide top 11 research priorities for liver GSD. In addition, a top three research priorities per liver GSD subtype was identified.This unique priority setting partnership is the first international, multilingual priority setting partnership focusing on ultra-rare diseases. This process provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies to foster interdisciplinary and transnational research projects with a clear benefit for patients.

Research priority setting in women's health: a systematic review.

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.

Cocreating research priorities for anorexia nervosa: The Canadian Eating Disorder Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Eating Disorder Priority Setting Partnership was established to identify and prioritize the top 10 research priorities for females, 15 years or older, with anorexia nervosa, by incorporating equal input from those with lived experience, families, and healthcare professionals. METHOD: This project, which closely followed the James Lind Alliance guidelines, solicited research priorities from the Canadian eating disorder community by means of a five-step process including use of a survey, response collation, literature checking, interim ranking survey, and in-person prioritization workshop. RESULTS: The initial survey elicited 897 priorities from 147 individuals, with almost equal representation from all three stakeholder groups. From this, 603 responses aligned with the project objectives and were collapsed into 71 broader indicative questions. Based on available systematic reviews, 18 indicative questions were removed as they were considered answered by existing literature while 8 indicative questions were added from the recommendations of the reviews. In total, 61 indicative questions were ranked in an interim ranking survey, where 21 questions were prioritized as important by at least 20% of respondents. As a final step, 28 individuals from across Canada attended the prioritization workshop to coestablish the top 10 research priorities. DISCUSSION: Top priorities were related to treatment gaps and the need for more surveillance data. This systematic methodology allowed for a transparent and collaborative approach to identifying current priorities from both the service user and provider perspective. Wide dissemination is anticipated to promote work that is of high relevance to patients, families, and clinicians.

It takes two to tango: carers' reflections on their participation and the participation of people with dementia in the James Lind Alliance process.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research has grown steadily in recent decades. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) is one approach to PPI that brings patients, carers and clinicians together to identify priorities for future research in a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). Our study aim was to describe the reflections of informal carers of people with dementia on the possibility of participating in the JLA's PSP process, for both themselves and the recipients of their care. In addition, we wanted to explore barriers to and facilitators of their participation. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups with 36 carers of people with dementia. Thematic analysis was applied to analyse the data. RESULTS: An overarching theme emerged from the participants' reflections: "Creating empowering teams where all voices are heard". The overarching theme incorporates the participants' suggestions about the importance of equivalence in power, mutual agreement with and understanding of the goals, adequate support, openness about each partner's tasks and the bonds needed between the partners to sustain the enterprise, and expectations of positive outcomes. From the overarching theme, two main themes emerged: "Interaction of human factors, the PSP process and the environment" and "The power of position and knowledge". The overall results indicated that carers are willing to participate in PSP processes and that they thought it important for people with dementia to participate in PSP processes as well, even if some might need extra support to do so. The carers also identified the need for research topics that influence their everyday lives, policy development and healthcare services. CONCLUSIONS: Both carers and the people with dementia for whom they care are able to contribute to the PSP process when given sufficient support. The involvement of these groups is important for setting healthcare research agendas, developing research projects that increase awareness and knowledge about their circumstances and improving health professionals', researchers' and policymakers' understanding of and insight into their unique situations.

Priority setting for adult malnutrition and nutritional screening in healthcare: a James Lind Alliance.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is one the greatest global health challenges of our generation, leading to the increased utilisation of healthcare resources, as well as morbidity and mortality. Research has primarily been driven by industry, academia and clinical working groups and has had little involvement from patients and carers. The project described in the present study aimed to establish a priority setting partnership allowing patients, carers and healthcare professionals an opportunity to influence the research agenda. METHODS: A national survey was conducted to gather malnutrition uncertainties and identify key issues (i.e. areas within scope where an evidence-base is lacking) from those with experience of malnutrition. Uncertainties were analysed according to themes. Similar questions were grouped and summary questions were developed. A second survey was conducted and respondents were asked to choose their 10 most important summary questions. A workshop was conducted to finalise the top 10 research priorities from the most frequently indicated uncertainties on the interim survey. RESULTS: Overall, 1128 uncertainty questions were submitted from 268 people. The interim survey had 71 responses and a list of the top 26 questions was generated for the workshop. There were 26 questions discussed, ranked and agreed by healthcare professionals, carers and patients at the workshop. The top 10 research priorities were then chosen. These included questions on oral nutritional supplements, vulnerable groups, screening, community care, use of body mass index and technology. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 research priorities in malnutrition and nutritional screening have been identified from a robust process involving patients, carers and healthcare professionals.

An Emergency Medicine Research Priority Setting Partnership to establish the top 10 research priorities in emergency medicine.

Defining research priorities in a specialty as broad as emergency medicine is a significant challenge. In order to fund and complete the most important research projects, it is imperative that we identify topics that are important to all clinicians, society and to our patients. We have undertaken a priority setting partnership to establish the most important questions facing emergency medicine. The top 10 questions reached through a consensus process are discussed.

Working together to shape the endometrial cancer research agenda: The top ten unanswered research questions.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common gynaecological cancer in developed nations and its incidence is rising. As a direct consequence, more women are dying from EC despite advances in care and improved survivorship. There is a lack of research activity and funding, as well as public awareness about EC. We sought to engage patients, carers and healthcare professionals to identify the most important unanswered research questions in EC. METHODOLOGY: The priority setting methodology was developed by the James Lind Alliance and involved four key stages: gathering research questions; checking these against existing evidence; interim prioritisation; and a final consensus meeting during which the top ten unanswered research questions were agreed using modified nominal group methodology. RESULTS: Our first online survey yielded 786 individual submissions from 413 respondents, of whom 211 were EC survivors or carers, and from which 202 unique unanswered research questions were generated. 253 individuals, including 108 EC survivors and carers, completed an online interim prioritisation survey. The resulting top 30 questions were ranked in a final consensus meeting. Our top ten spanned the breadth of patient experience of this disease and included developing personalised risk scoring, refining criteria for specialist referral, understanding the underlying biology of different types of EC, developing novel personalised treatment and prevention strategies, prognostic and predictive biomarkers, increasing public awareness and interventions for psychological issues. CONCLUSION: Having established the top ten unanswered research questions in EC, we hope this galvanises researchers, healthcare professionals and the public to collaborate, coordinate and invest in research to improve the lives of women affected by EC.

Should We Give Routine Postoperative Intravenous Fluids After Cleft Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: In 2012, the James Lind Alliance, together with the Craniofacial Society of Great Britain and Ireland and the Cleft Lip and Palate Association, set priorities for unanswered questions in cleft management. One of these priorities included postoperative fluid management. The authors' postoperative regimen does not include intravenous fluids unless the child fails to achieve adequate oral intake by the first evening postoperatively. This audit evaluated whether this is appropriate and safe practice. METHODS: All patients undergoing cleft-related surgery by a single surgeon in a single center during August 2011 to August 2012 were included. Patient age, weight, and surgery type were recorded together with fluid requirement, length of stay, and any returns to theater or readmissions. RESULTS: Of the 79 patients included, none required readmission or return to theater, and the mean length of stay was 1.72 days. Nineteen patients (24%) required intravenous fluids, but these tended to be the older children in the group (P value .034). In the youngest patients undergoing primary lip repair, only 1 of 20 required intravenous fluids. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, especially in the younger patients, omitting intravenous fluids as a postoperative routine is associated with a shorter length of stay without an increased complication rate. The authors advocate early postoperative feeding and the return to physiological fluid balance.

Should We Give Routine Postoperative Intravenous Fluids After Cleft Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: In 2012, the James Lind Alliance, together with the Craniofacial Society of Great Britain and Ireland and the Cleft Lip and Palate Association, set priorities for unanswered questions in cleft management. One of these priorities included postoperative fluid management. The authors' postoperative regimen does not include intravenous fluids unless the child fails to achieve adequate oral intake by the first evening postoperatively. This audit evaluated whether this is appropriate and safe practice. METHODS: All patients undergoing cleft-related surgery by a single surgeon in a single center during August 2011 to August 2012 were included. Patient age, weight, and surgery type were recorded together with fluid requirement, length of stay, and any returns to theater or readmissions. RESULTS: Of the 79 patients included, none required readmission or return to theater, and the mean length of stay was 1.72 days. Nineteen patients (24%) required intravenous fluids, but these tended to be the older children in the group (P value .034). In the youngest patients undergoing primary lip repair, only 1 of 20 required intravenous fluids. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, especially in the younger patients, omitting intravenous fluids as a postoperative routine is associated with a shorter length of stay without an increased complication rate. The authors advocate early postoperative feeding and the return to physiological fluid balance.

Dementia priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance: using patient and public involvement and the evidence base to inform the research agenda.

BACKGROUND: The James Lind Alliance (JLA) created an approach to elicit the views of those under-represented in research priority exercises. Building on this, the JLA Dementia Priority Setting Partnership was set up as an independent and evidence-based project to identify and prioritise unanswered questions ('uncertainties') about prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care relating to dementia. METHODS: A survey was widely disseminated to stakeholders with an interest in the needs of the older population. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes from the large amount of questions collected from which research questions were developed using PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome). Each question was checked against an extensive evidence base of high-quality systematic reviews to verify whether they were true uncertainties. FINDINGS: One thousand five hundred and sixty-three questionnaires were received, from people with dementia, carers/relatives, and health and care professionals; 85 uncertainties were identified from other sources. Questions were refined and formatted iteratively into 146 unique uncertainties. An interim prioritisation process involving diverse organisations identified the top 25 ranked questions. At a final face-to-face prioritisation workshop, 18 people representing the above constituencies arrived by consensus at the top 10 priority questions. The impact of patient and public involvement on the priorities is discussed. INTERPRETATION: The long (146 questions) and top 10 lists of dementia research priorities provide a focus for researchers, funders and commissioners. They highlight a need for more research into care for people with dementia and carers, and a need for high-quality effectiveness trials in all aspects of dementia research.

Establishing the Top 10 Research Priorities for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer in Canada: A Protocol for a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15-39 years) diagnosed with cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs. These needs could be better addressed through research that is focused on the topics that matter most to them. However, there is currently no patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer in Canada. This manuscript describes the early development and project protocol for a priority-setting partnership (PSP) for establishing the top 10 research priorities for AYA cancer in Canada. This project follows the PSP methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in research prioritization. The steps of a JLA PSP include establishing a steering group and project partners, gathering uncertainties, data processing and verifying uncertainties, interim priority setting, and a final priority setting workshop. The AYA cancer PSP will result in a top 10 list of research priorities identified by Canadian AYA patients, caregivers, and clinicians that will be published and shared broadly with the research community. The first steering group meeting was held in April 2023, and the project is ongoing. The establishment of a patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer will catalyze a long-term and impactful research focus and ultimately improve outcomes for AYA patients with cancer in Canada.