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.

Working together as scientific and experiential experts: how do current ethical PAR-principles work in a research team with young adults with Developmental Language Disorder?

Participatory Action Research (PAR) brings unique ethical challenges. Scholars have developed seven ethical principles to address these challenges. So far, little has been published on how these ethical principles (are put to) work in different fields. We used the principles to evaluate our collaboration with co-researchers with developmental language disorder (DLD). This article aims to explore how the principles helped to reflect on the ongoing research practice. First, we needed to simplify the language of the principles so that the co-researchers could understand how they relate to concrete practices. Second, the co-researchers needed to be reminded of specific events before they could relate the principles to their own experiences. Lastly, for an evaluation of (co-) researchers dealing with multiple roles, from friend to colleague and client, this theme has been specifically included to the principle of personal integrity, so that it cannot be overlooked. Looking through a care ethical lens, we suggest speaking of practical insights rather than (ethical) principles, as it more clearly communicates that these insights are based on learning by doing and are not fixed, but build on (good) practices, whilst still allowing enough room for adjustments to the particularities inherent to each research process.