Dataset Information

Understanding and Enhancing Sepsis Survivorship. Priorities for Research and Practice.

ABSTRACT: An estimated 14.1 million patients survive sepsis each year. Many survivors experience poor long-term outcomes, including new or worsened neuropsychological impairment; physical disability; and vulnerability to further health deterioration, including recurrent infection, cardiovascular events, and acute renal failure. However, clinical trials and guidelines have focused on shorter-term survival, so there are few data on promoting longer-term recovery. To address this unmet need, the International Sepsis Forum convened a colloquium in February 2018 titled "Understanding and Enhancing Sepsis Survivorship." The goals were to identify gaps and limitations of current research and shorter- and longer-term priorities for understanding and enhancing sepsis survivorship. Twenty-six experts from eight countries participated. The top short-term priorities identified by nominal group technique culminating in formal voting were to better leverage existing databases for research, develop and disseminate educational resources on postsepsis morbidity, and partner with sepsis survivors to define and achieve research priorities. The top longer-term priorities were to study mechanisms of long-term morbidity through large cohort studies with deep phenotyping, build a harmonized global sepsis registry to facilitate enrollment in cohorts and trials, and complete detailed longitudinal follow-up to characterize the diversity of recovery experiences. This perspective reviews colloquium discussions, the identified priorities, and current initiatives to address them.

SUBMITTER: Prescott HC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6794113 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding and Enhancing Sepsis Survivorship. Priorities for Research and Practice.

Prescott Hallie C HC Iwashyna Theodore J TJ Blackwood Bronagh B Calandra Thierry T Chlan Linda L LL Choong Karen K Connolly Bronwen B Dark Paul P Ferrucci Luigi L Finfer Simon S Girard Timothy D TD Hodgson Carol C Hopkins Ramona O RO Hough Catherine L CL Jackson James C JC Machado Flavia R FR Marshall John C JC Misak Cheryl C Needham Dale M DM Panigrahi Pinaki P Reinhart Konrad K Yende Sachin S Zafonte Ross R Rowan Kathryn M KM Angus Derek C DC

American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20191001 8

An estimated 14.1 million patients survive sepsis each year. Many survivors experience poor long-term outcomes, including new or worsened neuropsychological impairment; physical disability; and vulnerability to further health deterioration, including recurrent infection, cardiovascular events, and acute renal failure. However, clinical trials and guidelines have focused on shorter-term survival, so there are few data on promoting longer-term recovery. To address this unmet need, the Internationa ...[more]

PMID: 31161771

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.DesignA consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.MethodsEach committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?ConclusionsWhile the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Project description:BackgroundInterest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research.MethodsThis scoping review was performed using established methods. We created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on which we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarized conceptualizations of co-production and how it was implemented. We extracted implications for co-production practice or future research and conducted a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research.ResultsNineteen articles reporting co-produced complex interventions and 64 reporting co-production in applied health research met the inclusion criteria. Lessons for the practice of co-production and requirements for co-production to become more embedded in organizational structures included (1) the capacity to implement co-produced interventions, (2) the skill set needed for co-production, (3) multiple levels of engagement and negotiation, and (4) funding and institutional arrangements for meaningful co-production. Themes for future research on co-production included (1) who to involve in co-production and how, (2) evaluating outcomes of co-production, (3) the language and practice of co-production, (4) documenting costs and challenges, and (5) vital components or best practice for co-production.ConclusionResearchers are operationalizing co-production in various ways, often without the necessary financial and organizational support required and the right conditions for success. We argue for accepting the diversity in approaches to co-production, call on researchers to be clearer in their reporting of these approaches, and make suggestions for what researchers should record. To support co-production of research, changes to entrenched academic and scientific practices are needed. Protocol registration details: The protocol for the scoping review was registered with protocols.io on 19 October 2021: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje .

Project description:As the respectful maternity care agenda expands, it is necessary to understand what the priorities are for improving respectful, dignified, and high-quality care for newborns. To catalyze and inform a developing research field, we undertook a prioritization exercise to identify global research questions. We used a modified Delphi process to identify potential research priorities for understanding and addressing respectful care for newborns. Based on a literature review and expert discussions, we sent an open-ended questionnaire to participants in Round 1. The results were consolidated and used to create the Round 2 questionnaire, which asked participants to rank the preliminary list of research questions in 3 categories (descriptive, implementation, and measurement). Responses were weighted by rank and collated to generate a prioritized, consensus-based list of research questions. Round 1 resulted in 70 research questions from 25 respondents, and 52 participants completed the Round 2 ranked survey. Most participants identified themselves as researchers (53.2%), program designers, implementers, or evaluators (56.5%). More than half of the participants reported working primarily in low-income countries (66%). Top descriptive questions were on understanding manifestations and definitions of disrespectful care among newborns and which perceptions and beliefs held by health workers affect the quality of care provided. Top implementation questions were around how to promote respectful care as a standard, challenges faced by health facilities, and identification of effective advocacy strategies. Top measurement questions were on quantitative and qualitative metrics and the impact of experiences on health outcomes. This study developed, for the first time, a prioritized list of research questions focusing exclusively on respectful care for newborns. The study highlighted the absence of agreed-upon terminology and tools needed to advance both theoretical and practical efforts. This list should guide researchers and other stakeholders in developing further research.

Dataset Information

Understanding and Enhancing Sepsis Survivorship. Priorities for Research and Practice.

Publications

Understanding and Enhancing Sepsis Survivorship. Priorities for Research and Practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets