Prioritization of Research Addressing Antipsychotics for Adolescents and Young Adults with Bipolar Disorder

Crowley et al. (2014) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

antipsychotics for adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - USA

Why was it conducted at all?

Because antipsychotic use among adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder is increasing despite significant clinical uncertainty, further research exploring the comparative effectiveness of antipsychotics on patient centered outcomes in these populations is needed.

What was the objective?

to create a prioritized agenda for research that would incorporate the perspectives of relevant stakeholders

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 10 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

consultation

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: literature review: to identify a list of future research needs for antipsychotic use in children and young adults with various psychiatric conditions, resulting in draft list of 21 possible evidence gaps. Step 2: stakeholder consultation: collecting input from stakeholders on draft list of possible evidence gaps, gaps were modified and others added, resulting in finalized list of 23 potential research topics. Step 3: forced-ranking prioritization: stakeholders prioritized the list of possible evidence gaps, input was used to rank the finalized list of possible evidence gaps into three tiers of priority

Which stakeholders took part?

Clinical experts and researchers in bipolar disorder, representatives from federal and nongovernmental funding agencies, representatives from relevant professional societies, healthcare decision makers, policymakers, representatives from related consumer and patient advocacy groups. 9 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

No information provided.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.