Road map to a patient-centered research agenda at the intersection of hospital medicine and geriatric medicine

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Objective

To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.

Results

Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).

Conclusion

We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

Addressing the Evidence Gap in Stroke Rehabilitation for Complex Patients: A Preliminary Research Agenda

Evidence suggests that a stroke occurs in isolation (no comorbid conditions) in less than 6% of patients. Multimorbidity, compounded by psychosocial issues, makes treatment and recovery for stroke increasingly complex. Recent research and health policy documents called for a better understanding of the needs of this patient population, and for the development and testing of models of care that meet their needs. A research agenda specific to complexity is required. The primary objective of the think tank was to identify and prioritize research questions that meet the information needs of stakeholders, and to develop a research agenda specific to stroke rehabilitation and patient complexity. A modified Delphi and World Café approach underpinned the think tank meeting, approaches well recognized to foster interaction, dialogue, and collaboration between stakeholders. Forty-three researchers, clinicians, and policymakers attended a 2-day meeting. Initial question-generating activities resulted in 120 potential research questions. Sixteen high-priority research questions were identified, focusing on predetermined complexity characteristics-multimorbidity, social determinants, patient characteristics, social supports, and system factors. The final questions are presented as a prioritized research framework. An emergent result of this activity is the development of a complexity and stroke rehabilitation research network. The research agenda reflects topics of importance to stakeholders working with stroke patients with increasingly complex care needs. This robust process resulted in a preliminary research agenda that could provide policymakers with the evidence needed to make improvements toward better-organized services, better coordination between settings, improved patient outcomes, and lower system costs.

The Research Priorities of People with Visual Impairments in the Netherlands

Introduction

Despite the relatively high prevalence and challenges of visual impairments, limited funding is available for ophthalmologic research in the Netherlands. The research needs of people with visual impairments could aid the ophthalmological research community to optimally distribute research resources. The objective of the study presented here was to identify daily life problems, concerns, and wishes for future research from people with ophthalmological disorders, visual impairments, or deafblindness in order to set a research agenda that provides directions for future ophthalmology research.

Methods

A four-phase participatory research approach was carried out using mixed methods to stimulate needs-articulation. Eight focus group discussions, seven feedback meetings, and seven interviews were organized, in which 89 consumers were consulted. Surveys to prioritize the topics were developed for both the medical and sociopsychological topics, which were completed by 784 and 631 respondents, respectively.

Results

For the medical research agenda, research directly aimed at the cause of the ophthalmological disorders was considered more important than research aimed at improving quality of life. The themes “new and regenerative medicine,” “cause and disease mechanism,” “prevention and diagnosis,” and “improvement of current treatments” were prioritized as high. For the sociopsychological agenda, needs concerning the “improvement of technologies for people with visual impairments” and “navigation, orientation, and accessibility of public space” were considered top priorities.

Discussion

The identified research needs were relatively uniform across different consumer groups, providing opportunities for joint action. The research agenda included themes that can be taken up by “traditional” ophthalmological research, more broadly defined health care–related research, and more policy-influencing strategies.

Implications for practitioners

The research needs could help researchers and policymakers in ophthalmology and visual impairment research to guide their research focus and legislation priorities.

Healthy Ageing: Raising Awareness of Inequalities, Determinants, and What Could Be Done to Improve Health Equity

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Social and scientific discourses on healthy ageing and on health equity are increasingly available, yet from a global perspective limited conceptual and analytical work connecting both has been published. This review was done to inform the WHO World Report on Ageing and Health and to inform and encourage further work addressing both healthy aging and equity.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted an extensive literature review on the overlap between both topics, privileging publications from 2005 onward, from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We also reviewed evidence generated around the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health, applicable to ageing and health across the life course.

RESULTS

Based on data from 194 countries, we highlight differences in older adults' health and consider three issues: First, multilevel factors that contribute to differences in healthy ageing, across contexts; second, policies or potential entry points for action that could serve to reduce unfair differences (health inequities); and third, new research areas to address the cause of persistent inequities and gaps in evidence on what can be done to increase healthy ageing and health equity.

IMPLICATIONS

Each of these areas warrant in depth analysis and synthesis, whereas this article presents an overview for further consideration and action.

Value of Information: A Tool to Improve Research Prioritization and Reduce Waste

In a Guest Editorial, Cosetta Minelli and Gianluca Baio explain how VOI analysis can prioritize research projects by identifying uncertainty in existing knowledge and then estimating expected benefits from reducing that uncertainty.

Quantitative benefit-harm assessment for setting research priorities: the example of roflumilast for patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

When faced with uncertainties about the effects of medical interventions regulatory agencies, guideline developers, clinicians, and researchers commonly ask for more research, and in particular for more randomized trials. The conduct of additional randomized trials is, however, sometimes not the most efficient way to reduce uncertainty. Instead, approaches such as value of information analysis or other approaches should be used to prioritize research that will most likely reduce uncertainty and inform decisions.

DISCUSSION

In situations where additional research for specific interventions needs to be prioritized, we propose the use of quantitative benefit-harm assessments that illustrate how the benefit-harm balance may change as a consequence of additional research. The example of roflumilast for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease shows that additional research on patient preferences (e.g., how important are exacerbations relative to psychiatric harms?) or outcome risks (e.g., what is the incidence of psychiatric outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease without treatment?) is sometimes more valuable than additional randomized trials. We propose that quantitative benefit-harm assessments have the potential to explore the impact of additional research and to identify research priorities Our approach may be seen as another type of value of information analysis and as a useful approach to stimulate specific new research that has the potential to change current estimates of the benefit-harm balance and decision making.

A patient-centered research agenda for the care of the acutely ill older patient

Hospitalists and others acute-care providers are limited by gaps in evidence addressing the needs of the acutely ill older adult population. The Society of Hospital Medicine sponsored the Acute Care of Older Patients Priority Setting Partnership to develop a research agenda focused on bridging this gap. Informed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute framework for identification and prioritization of research areas, we adapted a methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance to engage diverse stakeholders in the research agenda setting process. The work of the Partnership proceeded through 4 steps: convening, consulting, collating, and prioritizing. First, the steering committee convened a partnership of 18 stakeholder organizations in May 2013. Next, stakeholder organizations surveyed members to identify important unanswered questions in the acute care of older persons, receiving 1299 responses from 580 individuals. Finally, an extensive and structured process of collation and prioritization resulted in a final list of 10 research questions in the following areas: advanced-care planning, care transitions, delirium, dementia, depression, medications, models of care, physical function, surgery, and training. With the changing demographics of the hospitalized population, a workforce with limited geriatrics training, and gaps in evidence to inform clinical decision making for acutely ill older patients, the identified research questions deserve the highest priority in directing future research efforts to improve care for the older hospitalized patient and enrich training.

Advancing geriatrics research, education, and practice: policy challenges after the great recession

The series of articles in this JGIM issue provides a number of policy-relevant recommendations for advancing geriatrics research, education and practice. Despite the unprecedented pressure to reduce state and federal spending, policymakers must concurrently address the challenges of a growing population of older individuals with increasingly complex health care problems. Thus, there may be opportunities to advance this agenda in creative ways. For example, without new spending, federal research agencies can make changes to encourage needed new directions in aging research, and the ACA provides new funding opportunities such as the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. States and the federal government have an increasing need for the health professions workforce to have collaborative care skills and geriatrics clinical competencies, and are finding ways to invest in relevant initiatives. On the clinical program side, state and federal governments are initiating programs to promote delivery system changes that improve the care of older adults. Nonetheless, in the face of the policy challenges that have persisted after the "great recession," academic geriatrics and general internal medicine will need to join forces with public and private interests to secure the resources needed to advance this ambitious agenda for geriatrics research, education and practice.