Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines.

Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.

A group of international researchers, patient partners, and other stakeholders are working together to create a checklist for when and how to involve stakeholders in health guideline development. Health guidelines include clinical practice guidelines, which your healthcare provider uses to determine treatments for health conditions. While working on this checklist, the team identified key issues to work on, including: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. This paper describes each issue and how the team plans to produce guidance papers to address them.

Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: 'expertise or experience', 'ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group', 'inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)', 'communication skills', 'commitment and time capacity', 'financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest', 'training support and funding needs'. Additionally, three factors are desirable: 'influence', 'research relevant values', 'previous stakeholder engagement'. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

The Bridge Building Model: connecting evidence-based practice, evidence-based research, public involvement and needs led research.

This paper describes a model developed by an interdisciplinary team of research and public engagement specialists, with backgrounds in health and social care research, higher education, evidence-based practice, leadership, commissioning research and public involvement and engagement. The model we propose combines evidence-based practice, evidence-based research, public involvement and needs led research. Our aim is to capitalise on the joining of the rationale and methods for these approaches, which have all been highlighted as important, but for which there has been a lack of models for integration. Our ambition is to argue for and show an effective and evidence-based way of working that bridges health and social care needs identification, evidence-based practice and research.

This paper describes a model that combines different concepts in healthcare research that the authors suggest belong together. The concepts are; Evidence Based Practice, where healthcare is based on the best research evidence, Evidence Based Research, where new research is developed in the context of what research already exists, public involvement in research, where service users, carers and health and social care professionals engage with research, and Needs Led Research, where new research addresses the needs of people that use healthcare services.Combining these important approaches in our model is new and we argue for and show a way of working that 'builds bridges' between health and social care needs, healthcare practice and research.The Bridge Building Model has been developed by a team of research and public involvement specialists, with a variety of backgrounds in health and social care research. These include education, healthcare leadership using evidence in healthcare and research funding.

Are we asking the right questions? Working with the LGBTQ+ community to prioritise healthcare research themes.

BACKGROUND: Conversations about research priorities with members of the public are rarely designed specifically to include people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers. METHODS: Generally, to address this gap, and specifically, to inform future research for CLS, we carried out a rapid review of published research priority sets covering LGBTQ+ topics, and an online workshop to prioritise identified themes. RESULTS: Rapid review: results. The rapid review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five addressed transgender and gender non- conforming populations. All of the research priority sets originated from English-speaking, high and middle-income countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), and date from 2016 onwards. Prioritization approaches were wide-ranging from personal commentary to expert workshops and surveys. Participants involved in setting priorities mostly included research academics, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in this review were then grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop. Workshop: results. For the workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert to a public involvement in research matching website to take part in an online discussion workshop. Those that took part were offered payment for their time in preparing for the workshop and taking part. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to a consensus development process and a final ranked list of seven research themes and participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units added additional context. CONCLUSIONS: From the workshop the three research themes prioritised were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular challenges / intersectionality of multiple challenges for people identifying as LGBTQ+. Research themes interconnected in many ways and this was demonstrated by the comments from workshop participants. This paper offers insights into why these priorities were important from participants' perspectives and detail about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise. On a practical level these themes will directly inform future research direction for CLS.

Conversations about research priorities with members of the public who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers are not common.We reviewed published research priorities covering LGBTQ+ topics and held an online workshop. The review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research published priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five were on transgender and gender non- conforming populations. Priorities were achieved by different methods such as workshops and surveys. People involved in setting priorities mostly included researchers, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in the review were grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop.For the online workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert and offered payment for their time. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to agreeing a final list of seven research themes in priority order. Participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units were helpful.From the workshop the three top research themes were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular and multiple challenges of people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. Research themes interconnected in many ways as shown by the comments from workshop participants. This paper describes why these priorities were important from participants' perspective and offers information about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

'All hands-on deck', working together to develop UK standards for public involvement in research.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in research is an established part of the research process in the UK, however there remain questions about what good public involvement in research looks and feels like. Until now public involvement practitioners, researchers and members of the public have looked for answers in examples shared across networks, published case studies, guidance and research articles. Pulling these strands together, the UK Standards for Public Involvement provides six statements (standards) about public involvement in research. They were produced by a partnership of organisations from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England with contributions from involvement practitioners, public partners, researchers and research funders. MAIN BODY: Each standard has reflective questions, which are designed to encourage standard users to use approaches and behaviours that improve involvement, over time. The standards are designed to be used as a practical tool, and reflect the agreed hallmarks of good public involvement in research for example, flexibility in approaches used, shared learning, and mutual respect.The standards development process is described from the initial idea and scoping, via the appraisal of existing standard sets and integration of values and principles in public involvement in research. The collaborative writing process of and consultation on the draft standard set is described, together with what changed as a result of feedback. The initiation of a year-long testing programme with forty participating research organisations, the experiential feedback and the resulting changes to the standards is summarised. CONCLUSION: This commentary paper describes, in some detail, a process to develop a set of six standards for public involvement in research in the UK. Producing a complex, national public involvement initiative is not without its challenges, and in supplementary material partnership members reflect on and share their experiences of standards development. The next phase of integration and implementation is explored with concluding comments from those that tested and helped improve the standards.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

What happens after James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships? A qualitative study of contexts, processes and impacts.

BACKGROUND: The James Lind Alliance (JLA) supports priority setting partnerships (PSPs) in which patients, carers and health professionals collaborate to identify a Top 10 list of research priorities. Few studies have examined how partnerships plan for the post-prioritisation phase, or how context and post-PSP processes influence the fortunes of priorities. This evaluation aimed to explore these questions. METHODS: We selected a diverse sample of 20 interviewees who had knowledge of 25 PSPs. Thirteen interviewees had led a PSP, either from a university, patient organisation or charity. Three were patients who had taken part in a PSP workshop. Four others, three researchers and one funder, had worked with JLA PSP priorities to develop research proposals. We analysed the data thematically, exploring how success was understood and achieved. RESULTS: The JLA PSPs had different histories, funding sources, goals and stakeholders. Whilst their focus was on generating priority research topics, PSPs' wider impacts included enhanced status and greater confidence for individuals, as well as relationship-building and network strengthening for the organisations involved. To follow through on a Top 10, additional work was needed to refine broad priority topics into research questions and match them with appropriate funding sources. Commitment to post-PSP action from partners appeared to increase the chance that priority topics would be followed through to funded studies. Academic publications could alert researchers to a PSP's outputs, but not all PSPs had the capacity to produce them. A Top 10 list potentially influences funding decisions through direct funding, themed calls or as a prompt in open calls. Influence on funders appears to depend on alignment between a priority and the funder's remit, culture and values. CONCLUSION: The history and context of a JLA PSP have a major influence on its impact. Our findings suggest that there is no universal formula for success, but that greater resource and attention should be given to what happens after prioritisation. Further research is needed on what works best in what circumstances. Overall, we conclude that a wider cultural change in the research world is needed for JLA PSPs to achieve their goal of shaping the research agenda.

Recruitment and retention in clinical trials in chronic kidney disease: report from national workshops with patients, caregivers and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Slow recruitment and poor retention jeopardize the reliability and statistical power of clinical trials, delaying access to effective interventions and increasing costs, as commonly observed in nephrology trials. Involving patients in trial design, recruitment and retention is infrequent but potentially transformational. METHODS: We conducted three workshops involving 105 patients/caregivers and 43 health professionals discussing patient recruitment and retention in clinical trials in chronic kidney disease. RESULTS: We identified four themes. 'Navigating the unknown'-patients described being unaware of the research question, confused by technical terms, sceptical about findings and feared the risk of harm. 'Wary of added burden'-patients voiced reluctance to attend additional appointments, were unsure of the commitment required or at times felt too unwell and without capacity to participate. 'Disillusioned and disconnected'-some patients felt they were taken for granted, particularly if they did not receive trial results. Participants believed there was no culture of trial participation in kidney disease and an overall lack of awareness about opportunities to participate. To improve recruitment and retention, participants addressed 'Building motivation and interest'. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators should establish research consciousness from the time of diagnosis, consider optimal timing for approaching patients, provide comprehensive information in an accessible manner, emphasize current and future relevance to them and their illness, involve trusted clinicians in recruitment and minimize the burden of trial participation. Participation in clinical trials was seen as an opportunity for people to give back to the health system and for future people in their predicament.

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Principles and strategies for involving patients in research in chronic kidney disease: report from national workshops.

BACKGROUND: There is widespread recognition that research will be more impactful if it arises from partnerships between patients and researchers, but evidence on best practice for achieving this remains limited. METHODS: We convened workshops in three Australian cities involving 105 patients/caregivers and 43 clinicians/researchers. In facilitated breakout groups, participants discussed principles and strategies for effective patient involvement in chronic kidney disease research. Transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Five major themes emerged. 'Respecting consumer expertise and commitment' involved valuing unique and diverse experiential knowledge, clarifying expectations and responsibilities, equipping for meaningful involvement and keeping patients 'in the loop'. 'Attuning to individual context' required a preference-based multipronged approach to engagement, reducing the burden of involvement and being sensitive to the patient journey. 'Harnessing existing relationships and infrastructure' meant partnering with trusted clinicians, increasing research exposure in clinical settings, mentoring patient to patient and extending reach through established networks. 'Developing a coordinated approach' enabled power in the collective and united voice, a systematic approach for equitable inclusion and streamlining access to opportunities and trustworthy information. 'Fostering a patient-centred culture' encompassed building a community, facilitating knowledge exchange and translation, empowering health ownership, providing an opportunity to give back and cultivating trust through transparency. CONCLUSIONS: Partnering with patients in research requires respect and recognition of their unique, diverse and complementary experiential expertise. Establishing a supportive, respectful research culture, responding to their individual context, coordinating existing infrastructure and centralizing the flow of information may facilitate patient involvement as active partners in research.

Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE).

BACKGROUND: Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. RESULTS: From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. CONCLUSIONS: The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Research priorities for childhood chronic conditions: a workshop report.

BACKGROUND: Chronic conditions are the leading cause of mortality, morbidity and disability in children. However, children and caregivers are rarely involved in identifying research priorities, which may limit the value of research in supporting patient-centred practice and policy. OBJECTIVE: To identify priorities of patients, caregivers and health professionals for research in childhood chronic conditions and describe the reason for their choices. SETTING: An Australian paediatric hospital and health consumer organisations. METHODS: Recruited participants (n=73) included patients aged 8 to 14 years with a chronic condition (n=3), parents/caregivers of children aged 0 to 18 years with a chronic condition (n=19), representatives from consumer organisations (n=13) and health professionals including clinicians, researches (n=38) identified and discussed research priorities. Transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Seventy-eight research questions were identified. Five themes underpinned participants' priorities: maintaining a sense of normality (enabling participation in school, supporting social functioning, promoting understanding and acceptance), empowering self-management and partnership in care (overcoming communication barriers, gaining knowledge and skills, motivation for treatment adherence, making informed decisions, access and understanding of complementary and alternative therapies),strengthening ability to cope (learning to have a positive outlook, preparing for home care management, transitioning to adult services), broadening focus to family (supporting sibling well-being, parental resilience and financial loss, alleviating caregiver burden), and improving quality and scope of health and social care (readdressing variability and inequities, preventing disease complications and treatment side effects, identifying risk factors, improving long-term outcomes, harnessing technology, integrating multidisciplinary services). CONCLUSION: Research priorities identified by children, caregivers and health professionals emphasise a focus on life participation, psychosocial well-being, impact on family and quality of care. These priorities may be used by funding and policy organisations in establishing a paediatric research agenda.

Practical Guidance for Involving Stakeholders in Health Research.

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly common in health research, with protocols for engaging multiple stakeholder groups becoming normative in patient-centered outcomes research. Previous work has focused on identifying relevant stakeholder groups with whom to work and on working with stakeholders in evidence implementation. This paper draws on the expertise of a team from four countries-Canada, Australia, the UK, and the USA-to provide researchers with practical guidance for carrying out multi-stakeholder-engaged projects: we present a list of questions to assist in selecting appropriate roles and modes of engagement; we introduce a matrix to help summarize engagement activities; and we provide a list of online resources. This guidance, matrix, and list of resources can assist researchers to consider more systematically which stakeholder groups to involve, in what study roles, and by what modes of engagement. By documenting how stakeholders are paired up with specific roles, the matrix also provides a potential structure for evaluating the impact of stakeholder engagement.

Top research priorities for preterm birth: results of a prioritisation partnership between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: We report a process to identify and prioritise research questions in preterm birth that are most important to people affected by preterm birth and healthcare practitioners in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. METHODS: Using consensus development methods established by the James Lind Alliance, unanswered research questions were identified using an online survey, a paper survey distributed in NHS preterm birth clinics and neonatal units, and through searching published systematic reviews and guidelines. Prioritisation of these questions was by online voting, with paper copies at the same NHS clinics and units, followed by a decision-making workshop of people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Overall 26 organisations participated. Three hundred and eighty six people responded to the survey, and 636 systematic reviews and 12 clinical guidelines were inspected for research recommendations. From this, a list of 122 uncertainties about the effects of treatment was collated: 70 from the survey, 28 from systematic reviews, and 24 from guidelines. After removing 18 duplicates, the 104 remaining questions went to a public online vote on the top 10. Five hundred and seven people voted; 231 (45%) people affected by preterm birth, 216 (43%) health professionals, and 55 (11%) affected by preterm birth who were also a health professional. Although the top priority was the same for all types of voter, there was variation in how other questions were ranked. Following review by the Steering Group, the top 30 questions were then taken to the prioritisation workshop. A list of top 15 questions was agreed, but with some clear differences in priorities between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: These research questions prioritised by a partnership process between service users and healthcare professionals should inform the decisions of those who plan to fund research. Priorities of people affected by preterm birth were sometimes different from those of healthcare professionals, and future priority setting partnerships should consider reporting these separately, as well as in total.

Implementing core outcomes in kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) implementation workshop.

There are an estimated 14,000 randomized trials published in chronic kidney disease. The most frequently reported outcomes are biochemical endpoints, rather than clinical and patient-reported outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mortality, and quality of life. While many trials have focused on optimizing kidney health, the heterogeneity and uncertain relevance of outcomes reported across trials may limit their policy and practice impact. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) Initiative was formed to identify core outcomes that are critically important to patients and health professionals, to be reported consistently across trials. We convened a SONG Implementation Workshop to discuss the implementation of core outcomes. Eighty-two patients/caregivers and health professionals participated in plenary and breakout discussions. In this report, we summarize the findings of the workshop in two main themes: socializing the concept of core outcomes, and demonstrating feasibility and usability. We outline implementation strategies and pathways to be established through partnership with stakeholders, which may bolster acceptance and reporting of core outcomes in trials, and encourage their use by end-users such as guideline producers and policymakers to help improve patient-important outcomes.

Clinicians' and researchers' perspectives on establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis: semistructured interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the perspectives of clinicians and researchers on identifying, establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis and their expected impact. DESIGN: Face-to-face, semistructured interviews; thematic analysis. STETTING: Twenty-seven centres across nine countries. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-eight nephrologists (42 (72%) who were also triallists). RESULTS: We identified six themes: reflecting direct patient relevance and impact (survival as the primary goal of dialysis, enabling well-being and functioning, severe consequences of comorbidities and complications, indicators of treatment success, universal relevance, stakeholder consensus); amenable and responsive to interventions (realistic and possible to intervene on, differentiating between treatments); reflective of economic burden on healthcare; feasibility of implementation (clarity and consistency in definition, easily measurable, requiring minimal resources, creating a cultural shift, aversion to intensifying bureaucracy, allowing justifiable exceptions); authoritative inducement and directive (endorsement for legitimacy, necessity of buy-in from dialysis providers, incentivising uptake); instituting patient-centredness (explicitly addressing patient-important outcomes, reciprocating trial participation, improving comparability of interventions for decision-making, driving quality improvement and compelling a focus on quality of life). CONCLUSIONS: Nephrologists emphasised that core outcomes should be relevant to patients, amenable to change, feasible to implement and supported by stakeholder organisations. They expected core outcomes would improve patient-centred care and outcomes.

Research priority setting in childhood chronic disease: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate research priority setting approaches in childhood chronic diseases and to describe the priorities of stakeholders including patients, caregivers/families and health professionals. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 16 October 2016. Studies that elicited stakeholder priorities for paediatric chronic disease research were eligible for inclusion. Data on the prioritisation process were extracted using an appraisal checklist. Generated priorities were collated into common topic areas. RESULTS: We identified 83 studies (n=15 722). Twenty (24%) studies involved parents/caregivers and four (5%) children. The top three health areas were cancer (11%), neurology (8%) and endocrine/metabolism (8%). Priority topic areas were treatment (78%), disease trajectory (48%), quality of life/psychosocial impact (48%), disease onset/prevention (43%), knowledge/self-management (33%), prevalence (30%), diagnostic methods (28%), access to healthcare (25%) and transition to adulthood (12%). The methods included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys and focus groups/interviews. Specific methods for collecting and prioritising research topics were described in only 60% of studies. Most reviewed studies were conducted in high-income nations. CONCLUSIONS: Research priority setting activities in paediatric chronic disease cover many discipline areas and have elicited a broad range of topics. However, child/caregiver involvement is uncommon, and the methods often lack clarity. A systematic and explicit process that involves patients and families in partnership may help to inform a more patient and family-relevant research agenda in paediatric chronic disease.