Comparing international dementia research priorities-Systematic review

Priorities in physical therapy research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy is an ever-evolving profession. To improve research efficiency, it is crucial to identify knowledge gaps and establish research priorities.

OBJECTIVE

To review priorities for physical therapy research, and to summarize the evidence into a global research agenda. As a secondary aim we sought to compare the priorities across studies.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review with searches in PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to gather studies and grey literature. Studies were included if they involved physical therapists, physical therapy researchers, patients, or policymakers who determined a research agenda or conducted a study on priority setting in physical therapy research. Content analysis was performed by two independent reviewers to gather research priorities into main topics for a global research agenda.

RESULTS

Twenty-five records were included, most being original articles (n = 19), from high-income countries (n = 25). Nine studies established generic priorities for physical therapy research, while the remaining were dedicated to physical therapy specific fields. A total of 551 priorities were established since 2000 for general physical therapy and 7 specific physical therapy areas. A global research agenda was established with 9 priority categories for future research. Cost and effectiveness studies were the more frequently prioritized research priorities.

CONCLUSION

This review synthesized the literature on priorities for physical therapy research and provided a global physical therapy research agenda. These 9 priority categories can now be used to design future physical therapy studies and channel research efforts into questions that are relevant for multiple stakeholders and nationalities.

A Systematic Review of Dementia Research Priorities

INTRODUCTION

Patient involvement is a critical component of dementia research priority-setting exercises to ensure that research benefits are relevant and acceptable to those who need the most. This systematic review synthesises research priorities and preferences identified by people living with dementia and their caregivers.

METHODS

Guided by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, we conducted a systematic search in five electronic databases: CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. The reference lists of the included studies were also manually searched. We combined quantitative and qualitative data for synthesis and descriptive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in this review. Findings are grouped into four main categories: Increase in knowledge, education, and awareness; Determining the cause; Sustainability of care; and Cure of dementia and related conditions.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to respond to the stigma associated with dementia, which limits access to care and the quality of life for both people living with dementia and their caregivers. We need to work on changing public, private and workplace attitudes about dementia and encourage supporting and participating in dementia research. Future research should involve people living with dementia and their primary caregivers from culturally and linguistically diverse communities in priority-setting exercises.

Identifying Dementia research priority for Qatar national dementia research plan: A Cross-sectional Survey

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) published the Global Action Plan 2017-2025 seven years ago to address the dementia burden for those impacted, including persons living with dementia, their families, and health-care providers. There were seven action areas in the global action plan; the least achieved was action area seven (dementia research and innovation). The primary objective of the study was to assess the top 10 dementia research priorities among healthcare professionals, patients, caregivers, the public, and stakeholders to develop the Qatar National Dementia Research Plan.

Methods

Convenience sampling was used in this cross-sectional survey. The study was conducted online with the involvement of HMC staff (physicians, nurses, and allied health staff) from all HMC facilities, patients and caregivers from Rumailah Hospital's Geriatric Department, and the public who attended the 2022 Advanced Dementia Research Conference. The survey was conducted during 22nd of October 2022 till April 31, 2024. Overall, 2000 participants provided their responses, which included health care professionals under HMC, including physicians, nurses, allied health staff, patients, caregivers, the public, and stakeholders in Qatar.

Results

Dementia Risk Reduction (79%) was the top priority for the survey participants. The remaining nine priorities were the impact of early treatment (76%), health system capacity (73%), implementation of best practices for care (73), access to information and services post-diagnosis (71), caregiver support (70%), emotional well-being (67%), care provider education (65%), end-of-life care (65%), and non-drug approaches to managing symptoms (65%).

Conclusion

The survey results clearly indicated that most participants ranked Dementia Risk Reduction as their top priority, indicating the essential focus on dementia prevention. These findings, together with goals such as early treatment, healthcare system capacity, and caregiver support, highlight the importance of an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to dementia management.

What matters to people and families affected by cerebral small vessel disease (SVD)? A qualitative grounded theory investigation

Background

Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is a common neurological disorder contributing to stroke, dementia, and disability. No treatment options exist although clinical trials are ongoing. We aimed to understand what matters to people and families affected by SVD to inform future research.

Methods

We thematically analysed unsolicited correspondences from members of the public addressed to members of the Edinburgh SVD Research Group on a variety of subjects related to SVD. We used inductive thematic codes, categorised under concerns, requests, emotions, and contributions, to form a grounded theory that categorised and ranked concerns raised.

Results

101 correspondents expressed 346 concerns between August 2015 and February 2021, mostly via email. 60 correspondents (59.4 %) disclosed a SVD diagnosis, 39 (38.6 %) disclosed a previous stroke or TIA, and 40 (39.6 %) were family of people living with SVD. Primary concerns related to cognitive problems (number of correspondents (n)=43 (42.6 %)), lack of support or information from healthcare services (n = 41 (40.6 %)), prognosis (n = 37 (36.6 %)), sensory disturbances (n = 27 (26.7 %)), functional problems (n = 24, (23.8 %)), impact on daily life (n = 24 (23.8 %)), and causes of SVD (n = 19 (18.8 %)). 57 correspondents (56.4 %) expressed support for research, 43 (42.6 %) expressed an eagerness to understand SVD, 35 (34.7 %) expressed helplessness, and 19 (18.8 %) expressed frustration.

Conclusions

Cognitive decline was the main concern for people and families living with SVD who corresponded with the Edinburgh SVD research group. These findings also indicate a need for more accessible services and better information about SVD for patients and families.

Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Priority setting partnerships (PSPs) attempt to shape the research agenda to address the needs of local populations of interest. We reviewed the PSPs for older adults, with a focus on exemplar health care systems: United Kingdom (UK; publicly funded), United States (private health insurance-based), South Korea (national health insurance-based), and Africa (out-of-pocket).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We searched databases and sources (January 2011-October 202l; updated in February 2023) for PSPs of older adults' health care.

METHODS

Based on the British geriatric medicine curriculum, we extracted and categorized the PSP topics by areas and the research priorities by themes, and generated evidence maps depicting and comparing the research gaps across the systems. We evaluated PSP quality using the Nine Common Themes of Good Clinical Practice.

RESULTS

We included 32 PSPs (United Kingdom: n = 25; United States: n = 7; South Korea and Africa: n = 0) and identified priorities regarding 27 conditions or service arrangements in the United Kingdom and 9 in the United States (predominantly in neurology/psychiatry). The UK priorities focused on treatments and interventions whereas the US on prognostic/predictive factors. There were notable research gaps within the existing PSPs, including common geriatric conditions like continence and frailty. The PSP quality evaluation revealed issues around lacking inclusion of ethnic minorities.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Research priorities for older adult health care vary internationally, but certain health care systems/countries have no available PSPs. Where PSPs are available, fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine have not been included. Future researchers should conduct prioritizations in different countries, focus on core geriatric syndromes, and ensure the inclusion of all relevant stakeholder groups.

Comparing international dementia research priorities-Systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Research priority setting aims to collate stakeholder opinion to determine the most pressing research questions. Priority setting exercises influence decisions around research funding, development and policy. We compared published dementia research priority setting exercises from international healthcare systems.

METHODS

Four multidisciplinary, international, electronic databases were searched for relevant studies (2010 until 2021). Priorities were extracted, coded and assigned to categories using thematic analysis. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice (9CTGP) and the Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) checklists were used to assess methodological and reporting quality respectively.

RESULTS

From 265 titles, 10 priority setting exercises (1179 participants, 147 priorities) were included. Studies spanned four continents and the majority included people living with dementia and their care-givers in the priority setting process (68%). Only one paper met all the best practice indicators. Issues around inclusiveness, implementation and evaluation of the priorities were apparent in nine papers. We categorised priorities under eight themes: caregivers (25%, n = 37), support (24%, n = 35), awareness and education (16%, n = 24), drugs and interventions (14%, n = 21), diagnosis (8%, n = 12), pathology (6%, n = 9), research design (5%, n = 7), and prevention (1%, n = 2). Priorities varied by geographical region, with awareness and education of higher priority in low-middle income countries, compared to caregivers and support in high income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Key priorities were identified with some commonality around themes considered of greatest importance. There is scope to improve the process and reporting of priority setting. Priorities differed according to contextual factors and so, priorities specific to one healthcare setting may not be applicable to others.