L Graham1, Bjg Illingworth2, M Showell3, M Vercoe3, E J Crosbie4, L J Gingel5, C M Farquhar3, A W Horne6, M Prior7, J M Stephenson8, L A Magee9, Jmn Duffy8,10. 1. Christ Church, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. 2. North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough, UK. 3. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 5. Radcliffe Women's Health Patient and Public Participation Panel, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 6. MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 7. Newcastle Fertility Centre, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle, UK. 8. Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK. 9. Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. 10. King's Fertility, The Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: J M N Duffy; H AlAhwany; S Bhattacharya; B Collura; C Curtis; J L H Evers; R G Farquharson; S Franik; L C Giudice; Y Khalaf; J M L Knijnenburg; B Leeners; R S Legro; S Lensen; J C Vazquez-Niebla; D Mavrelos; B W J Mol; C Niederberger; E H Y Ng; A S Otter; L Puscasiu; S Rautakallio-Hokkanen; S Repping; I Sarris; J L Simpson; A Strandell; C Strawbridge; H L Torrance; A Vail; M van Wely; M A Vercoe; N L Vuong; A Y Wang; R Wang; J Wilkinson; M A Youssef; C M Farquhar Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: J M N Duffy; G D Adamson; E Benson; S Bhattacharya; S Bhattacharya; M Bofill; K Brian; B Collura; C Curtis; J L H Evers; R G Farquharson; A Fincham; S Franik; L C Giudice; E Glanville; M Hickey; A W Horne; M L Hull; N P Johnson; V Jordan; Y Khalaf; J M L Knijnenburg; R S Legro; S Lensen; J MacKenzie; D Mavrelos; B W Mol; D E Morbeck; H Nagels; E H Y Ng; C Niederberger; A S Otter; L Puscasiu; S Rautakallio-Hokkanen; L Sadler; I Sarris; M Showell; J Stewart; A Strandell; C Strawbridge; A Vail; M van Wely; M Vercoe; N L Vuong; A Y Wang; R Wang; J Wilkinson; K Wong; T Y Wong; C M Farquhar; Hisham AlAhwany; Ofra Balaban; Faith Barton; Yusuf Beebeejaun; Jacky Boivin; Jan J. A. Bosteels; Carlos Calhaz-Jorge; Arianna D’Angelo; Leona F. Dann; Christopher J. De Jonge; Elyce du Mez; Rui A. Ferriani; Marie-Odile Gerval; Lynda J. Gingel; Ellen M. Greenblatt; Geraldine Hartshorne; Charlie Helliwell; Lynda J. Hughes; Junyoung Jo; Jelena Jovanović; Ludwig Kiesel; Chumnan Kietpeerakool; Elena Kostova; Tansu Kucuk; Rajesh Kumar; Robyn L. Lawrence; Nicole Lee; Katy E. Lindemann; Olabisi M. Loto; Peter J. Lutjen; Michelle MacKinven; Mariano Mascarenhas; Helen McLaughlin; Selma M. Mourad; Linh K. Nguyen; Robert J. Norman; Maja Olic; Kristine L. Overfield; Maria Parker-Harris; Sjoerd Repping; Roberta Rizzo; Pietro Salacone; Catherine H. Saunders; Rinku Sengupta; Ioannis A. Sfontouris; Natalie R. Silverman; Helen L. Torrance; Eleonora P. Uphoff; Sarah A. Wakeman; Tewes Wischmann; Bryan J. Woodward; Mohamed A. Youssef Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 6.918