AIMS: Research priorities are often set by academic researchers or the pharmaceutical industry. The interests of patients, carers and clinicians may therefore be overlooked and research questions that matter may be neglected. The aims of this study were to collect uncertainties about the treatment of Type 1 diabetes from patients, carers and health professionals, and to collate and prioritize these uncertainties to develop a top 10 list of research priorities, using a structured priority-setting partnership of patients, carers, health professionals and diabetes organizations, as described by the James Lind Alliance. METHODS: A partnership of interested organizations was set up, and from this a steering committee of 10 individuals was formed. An online and paper survey was used to identify uncertainties. These were collated, and the steering group carried out an interim priority-setting exercise with partner organizations. This group of uncertainties was then voted on to give a smaller list that went forward to the final priority-setting workshop. At this meeting, a final list of the top 10 research priorities was agreed. RESULTS: An initial 1141 uncertainties were described. These were reduced to 88 indicative questions, 47 of which went out for voting. Twenty-four were then taken forward to a final priority-setting workshop. This workshop resulted in a list of top 10 research priorities in Type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSION: We have shown that it is possible using the James Lind Alliance process to develop an agreed top 10 list of research priorities for Type 1 diabetes from health professionals, patients and carers.
AIMS: Research priorities are often set by academic researchers or the pharmaceutical industry. The interests of patients, carers and clinicians may therefore be overlooked and research questions that matter may be neglected. The aims of this study were to collect uncertainties about the treatment of Type 1 diabetes from patients, carers and health professionals, and to collate and prioritize these uncertainties to develop a top 10 list of research priorities, using a structured priority-setting partnership of patients, carers, health professionals and diabetes organizations, as described by the James Lind Alliance. METHODS: A partnership of interested organizations was set up, and from this a steering committee of 10 individuals was formed. An online and paper survey was used to identify uncertainties. These were collated, and the steering group carried out an interim priority-setting exercise with partner organizations. This group of uncertainties was then voted on to give a smaller list that went forward to the final priority-setting workshop. At this meeting, a final list of the top 10 research priorities was agreed. RESULTS: An initial 1141 uncertainties were described. These were reduced to 88 indicative questions, 47 of which went out for voting. Twenty-four were then taken forward to a final priority-setting workshop. This workshop resulted in a list of top 10 research priorities in Type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSION: We have shown that it is possible using the James Lind Alliance process to develop an agreed top 10 list of research priorities for Type 1 diabetes from health professionals, patients and carers.
Authors: Braden Manns; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Erin Lillie; Sally Crowe P G Dip; Annette Cyr; Michael Gladish; Claire Large; Howard Silverman; Brenda Toth; Wim Wolfs; Andreas Laupacis Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Emily B Schroeder; Jay Desai; Julie A Schmittdiel; Andrea R Paolino; Jennifer L Schneider; Glenn K Goodrich; Jean M Lawrence; Katherine M Newton; Gregory A Nichols; Patrick J O'Connor; Marcy Fitz-Randolph; John F Steiner Journal: Interact J Med Res Date: 2015-06-30
Authors: Alison Layton; E Anne Eady; Maggie Peat; Heather Whitehouse; Nick Levell; Matthew Ridd; Fiona Cowdell; Mahenda Patel; Stephen Andrews; Christine Oxnard; Mark Fenton; Lester Firkins Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sarah Kelly; Louise Lafortune; Nicola Hart; Katherine Cowan; Mark Fenton; Carol Brayne Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 10.668