Prioritizing Research: Patients, Carers, and Clinicians Working Together to Identify and Prioritize Important Clinical Uncertainties in Urinary Incontinence

Buckley et al. (2010) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

urinary incontinence

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Europe - United Kingdom

Why was it conducted at all?

Research often neglects important gaps in existing evidence. Throughout healthcare, clinicians and patients face avoidable "clinical uncertainties" daily, making decisions about treatments without reliable evidence about their effects.

What was the objective?

to identify and prioritize clinical uncertainties relating to treatment of urinary incontinence

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?

JLA method

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: setting up PSP: identification of potential partner organizations. Step 2: collecting research questions: survey: participants requesting to report any uncertainty which had affected their own treatment or their decision about the treatment of others: first, the bladder problem relating to incontinence was identified; second, the information which would have helped to inform their treatment choice but which they were unable to find was listed; third, an indication of where participants had sought the information they needed. In addition, treatment uncertainties were identified from research recommendations contained in systematic review, resulting in 494 raw uncertainties. Step 3: data processing: uncertainties transformed into PICO format, duplicates removed, resulting in 226 clinical uncertainties. Step 4: interim ranking: via survey, partnership organizations asked to identify and rank through internal consultation the ten uncertainties that they would most likely see prioritized for research. Step 5: final prioritization: workshop with nominal group technique: small group discussions, small group rankings, plenary ranking

Which stakeholders took part?

21 participants overall: 8 patient organizations (or patient and professional organizations with a patient focus) and 13 health care professional organizations (clinicians).

How were stakeholders recruited?

Thirty organizations were identified as potential partners and invited.

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.