Escalating Mucus Inhibition to the Top of Our Priorities.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Britto CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6839933 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Escalating Mucus Inhibition to the Top of Our Priorities.
Britto Clemente J CJ Cohn Lauren L
American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology 20190901 3
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe profound changes in medical care and the recent stress on a patient-centered approach mandate evaluation of current patient priorities.MethodsHospitalized and ambulatory patients at an academic medical center in central Israel were investigated. Consecutive patients (n = 274) indicated their first and second priority for a change or improvement in their medical care out of a mixed shortlist of 6 issues, 3 related to patient-physician relationship (being better informed and taking part in decisions; being seen by the same doctor each time; a longer consultation time) and 3 issues related to the organizational aspect of care (easier access to specialists/hospital; shorter queue for tests; less charges for drugs).ResultsGetting more information from the physician and taking part in decisions was the most desirable patient choice, selected by 27.4% as their first priority. The next choices - access and queue - also relate to more patient autonomy and control over that of managed care regulations. Patients studied were least interested in continuity of care, consultation time or cost of drugs. Demographic or clinical variables were not significantly related to patients' choices.ConclusionBeyond its many benefits, being informed by their doctor and shared decision making is a top patient priority.
| S-EPMC1431526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThere is a mismatch between research questions considered important by patients, carers and healthcare professionals and the research performed in many fields of medicine. The non-alcohol-related liver and gallbladder disorders priority setting partnership was established to identify the top research priorities in the prevention, diagnostic and treatment of gallbladder disorders and liver disorders not covered by the James-Lind Alliance (JLA) alcohol-related liver disease priority setting partnership.DesignThe methods broadly followed the principles of the JLA guidebook. The one major deviation from the JLA methodology was the final step of identifying priorities: instead of prioritisation by group discussions at a consensus workshop involving stakeholders, the prioritisation was achieved by a modified Delphi consensus process.ResultsA total of 428 unique valid diagnostic or treatment research questions were identified. A literature review established that none of these questions were considered 'answered' that is, high-quality systematic reviews suggest that further research is not required on the topic. The Delphi panel achieved consensus (at least 80% Delphi panel members agreed) that a research question was a top research priority for six questions. Four additional research questions with highest proportion of Delphi panel members ranking the question as highly important were added to constitute the top 10 research priorities.ConclusionsA priority setting process involving patients, carers and healthcare professionals has been used to identify the top 10priority areas for research related to liver and gallbladder disorders. Basic, translational, clinical and public health research are required to address these uncertainties.
| S-EPMC6429888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite years of basic research and pioneering clinical work, ischemic stroke remains a major public health concern. Prior STAIR (Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable) conferences identified both failures of clinical trial design and failures in preclinical assessment in developing putative ischemic stroke treatments. At STAIR XI, participants in workshop no. 1 Top Priorities for Neuroprotection sought to redefine the neuroprotection paradigm and given the paucity of evidence underlying preclinical assessment, offer consensus-based recommendations. STAIR proposes the term brain cytoprotection or cerebroprotection to replace the term neuroprotection when the intention of an investigation is to demonstrate that a new, candidate treatment benefits the entire brain. Although "time is still brain," tissue imaging techniques have been developed to identify patients with both predicted core injury and penumbral, salvageable brain tissue, regardless of time after stroke symptom onset. STAIR XI workshop participants called this imaging approach a tissue window to select patients for recanalization. Elements of the neurovascular unit show differential vulnerability evolving over differing time scales in different brain regions. STAIR proposes the term target window to suggest therapies that target the different elements of the neurovascular unit at different times. Based on contemporary principles of rigor and transparency, the workshop updated, revised, and enhanced the STAIR preclinical recommendations for developing new treatments in 2 phases: an exploratory qualification phase and a definitive validation phase. For new, putative treatments, investigators should carefully characterize the mechanism of action, the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, demonstrate target engagement, and confirm penetration through the blood-brain barrier. Before clinical trials, testing of candidate molecules in stroke models could proceed in a comprehensive manner using animals of both sexes and to include significant variables such as age and comorbid conditions. Comprehensive preclinical assessment might include multicenter, collaborative testing, for example, network trials. In the absence of a proven cerebroprotective agent to use as a gold standard, however, it remains speculative whether such comprehensive preclinical assessment can effectively predict clinical outcome.
| S-EPMC8384700 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7744161 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The discipline of cardio-oncology has expanded at a remarkable pace. Recent developments and challenges to clinicians who practice cardio-oncology were presented at the Global Cardio-Oncology Summit on October 3 to 4, 2019, in São Paulo, Brazil. Here, we present the top 10 priorities for our field that were discussed at the meeting, and also detail a potential path forward to address these challenges. Defining robust predictors of cardiotoxicity, clarifying the role of cardioprotection, managing and preventing thromboembolism, improving hematopoietic stem cell transplant outcomes, personalizing cardiac interventions, building the cardio-oncology community, detecting and treating cardiovascular events associated with immunotherapy, understanding tyrosine kinase inhibitor cardiotoxicity, and enhancing survivorship care are all priorities for the field. The path forward requires a commitment to research, education, and excellence in clinical care to improve our patients' lives.
| S-EPMC8352295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and prioritize the top 10 research questions for PsA.MethodsThe British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians, supported by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). This PSP followed the established three-stage JLA process: first, an online survey of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians to identify PsA questions, asking, 'What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?' The questions were checked against existing evidence to establish 'true uncertainties' and grouped as 'indicative questions' reflecting the overarching themes. Then a second online survey ranked the 'true uncertainties' by importance. Finally, a workshop including people living with PsA and clinician stakeholders finalized the top 10 research priorities.ResultsThe initial survey attracted 317 respondents (69% people living with PsA, 15% carers), with 988 questions. This generated 46 indicative questions. In the second survey, 422 respondents (78% people living with PsA, 4% carers) prioritized these. Eighteen questions were taken forward to the final online workshop. The top unanswered PsA research question was 'What is the best strategy for managing patients with psoriatic arthritis including non-drug and drug treatments?' Other top 10 priorities covered diagnosis, prognosis, outcome assessment, flares, comorbidities and other aspects of treatment (https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk).ConclusionThe top 10 priorities will guide PsA research and enable PsA researchers and those who fund research to know the most important questions for people living with PsA.
| S-EPMC10393438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the word. Which aspects of research into CRC should be accorded the highest priority remains unclear, because relevant stakeholders, such as patients, nurses, and physicians, played hardly any part in the development of research projects. The goal in forming the CRC Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) was to bring all relevant stakeholders together to identify and prioritize unresolved research questions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CRC.MethodsThe CRC PSP worked in cooperation with the British James Lind Alliance. An initial nationwide survey was conducted, and evidence uncertainties were collected, categorized, summarized, and compared with available evidence from the literature. The as-yet unresolved questions were (provisionally) ranked in a second national wide survey, and at a concluding consensus workshop all stakeholders came together to finalize the rankings in a nominal group process and compile a top 10 list.ResultsIn the first survey (34% patients, 51% healthcare professionals, 15% unknown), 1102 submissions were made. After exclusion of duplicates and previously resolved questions, 66 topics were then ranked in the second survey (56% patients, 39% healthcare professionals, 5% unknown). This interim ranking process revealed distinct differences between relatives and healthcare professionals. The final top 10 list compiled at the consensus workshop covers a wide area of research topics.ConclusionAll relevant stakeholders in the CRC PSP worked together to identify and prioritize the top 10 evidence uncertainties. The results give researchers and funding bodies the opportunity to address the most patient-relevant research projects. It is the first detailed description of a PSP in Germany, and the first PSP on CRC care worldwide.
| S-EPMC10020251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh quality primary care is fundamental to achieving health for all. Research priority setting is a key facilitator of improving how research activity responds to concrete needs. There has never before been an attempt to identify international primary care research priorities, in order to guide resource allocation and to enhance global primary care. This study aimed to identify a list of top 10 primary care research priorities, as identified by members of the public, health professionals working in primary care, researchers, and policymakers.MethodsWe adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process, to conduct multiple rounds of stakeholder recruitment and prioritization. The study included an online survey conducted in three languages, followed by an in-person priority setting exercise involving primary care stakeholders from 13 countries.FindingsParticipants identified a list of top 10 international primary care research priorities. These were focused on diverse topics such as enhancing use of information and communication technology, and improving integration of indigenous communities' knowledge in the design of primary care services. The main limitations of the study related to challenges in engaging an adequate diversity and number of appropriate stakeholders, particularly members of the public, in aggregating the diverse set of responses into coherent categories representative of the participants' perspectives and in adequately representing the diversity of submitted responses while ensuring research priorities on the final list are sufficiently actionable to guide resource allocation.ConclusionsThe top 10 identified research priorities have the potential to guide research resource allocation, supporting funding agencies and initiatives to promote global primary care research and practice.
| S-EPMC6201922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe Gaps in the Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH) Journey Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was developed in collaboration with CDH Australia, James Lind Alliance (JLA) and the Murdoch Children's Research Institute to identify research priorities for people with CDH, their families and healthcare workers in Australasia.DesignResearch PSP in accordance with the JLA standardised methodology.SettingAustralian community and institutions caring for patients with CDH and their families.PatientsCDH survivors, families of children born with CDH (including bereaved) and healthcare professionals including critical care physicians and nurses (neonatal and paediatric), obstetric, surgical, allied health professionals (physiotherapists, speech pathologists and speech therapists) and general practitioners.Main outcome measureTop 10 research priorities for CDH.Results377 questions, from a community-based online survey, were categorised and collated into 50 research questions. Through a further prioritisation process, 21 questions were then discussed at a prioritisation workshop where they were ranked by 21 participants (CDH survivors, parents of children born with CDH (bereaved and not) and 11 multidisciplinary healthcare professionals) into their top 10 research priorities.ConclusionStakeholders' involvement identified the top 10 CDH-related research questions, spanning from antenatal care to long-term functional outcomes, that should be prioritised for future research to maximise meaningful outcomes for people with CDH and their families.
| S-EPMC11672073 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesInspired by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) user involvement approach, the aim of the present study was to identify the top 10 uncertainties for sleep research raised by students in higher education, and to discuss our experiences with adapting the JLA method to a student population.DesignThe study design is a pragmatic JLA approach, including a priority setting partnership within the field of sleep, collection of sleep-related research uncertainties as reported by students in higher education, sorting of the uncertainties and a final identification of the top 10 uncertainties through collaborative work between researchers, students, stakeholders and experts in the field. Uncertainties were collected using a one-question online survey: 'as a student, which question(s) do you consider to be important with regards to sleep?'. A variety of approaches were applied to promote the survey to the students, including social media, radio, the university website, stands in university cafeterias and a sleep stunt. NVivo V.12 was used to code and sort the questions.SettingA higher education institution in Norway.Participants555 students.ResultsThe data collection provided 608 uncertainties, and the following prioritised top 10: (1) screen time, (2) stress, (3) educational achievements, (4) social relations, (5) mental health, (6) physical activity, (7) indoor environment, (8) substance abuse, (9) shift work and (10) sleep quality. Despite successful data collection, we found sleep to be a broad topic, and defining specific questions throughout the sorting and verification process proved difficult.ConclusionsWe identified the prioritised top 10 research uncertainties as reported by students in higher education, ranking screen time first. However, the process was time and resource consuming. The research uncertainties addressed by the students showed great diversity, characterised by heterogeneity and a lack of specificity, making verification of the uncertainties challenging.
| S-EPMC7839855 | biostudies-literature