Two decades of ART: improving on success through further research.
ABSTRACT: Since the introduction of the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach over twenty years ago, more than 190 research publications have appeared. The last research agenda defining research priorities for ART was published in 1999. The objective of the present work was to review existing research in the context of future research priorities for ART.An internet survey was conducted amongst those who had published on ART or were known to be working on the ART approach, to solicit their views as to areas of future ART research. Three broad categories were defined, namely: 1. Basic and laboratory research; 2. Clinical research, and, 3. Community, Public Health, Health Services Research.A 31% response rate was achieved. The study identified a number of new areas of research as well as areas where additional research is required. These are expressed as recommendations for future ART research.The ART approach is based on a robust, reliable and ever-growing evidence base concerning its clinical applications which indicates that it is a reliable and quality treatment approach. In common with all other oral health care procedures, targeted applied research is required to improve the oral health care offered.
Project description:Despite progress, 2016 still saw 160,000 new infections and 120,000 AIDS-related deaths among children. Evidence gaps on how to best diagnose, treat, and deliver services to children living with HIV remain. A global research prioritization exercise was undertaken by WHO and CIPHER to focus research efforts in the context of diminishing resources.The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology was adapted and used, as described by Irvine et al. Outcomes were reviewed by an expert group and 5 priority themes identified for testing, antiretroviral treatment, and service delivery, accounting for existing policies, published literature and ongoing research.A total of 749 questions were submitted by 269 individuals from 62 countries. For HIV testing, priority themes included strategies and interventions to improve access, uptake and linkage to care, including with novel diagnostic tools and entry points beyond antenatal care. For treatment, priorities included strategies to improve adherence, short- and long-term outcomes and management of coinfections, optimal drug formulations, and early ART. For service delivery, priorities included strategies or interventions to improve access, uptake and retention in care, including psychosocial and family support and approaches to HIV disclosure and reduction of stigma and discrimination.This is the largest Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative exercise undertaken in HIV. The results provide guidance to focus future research in pediatric HIV for impact. Global commitment to support priority research, adequate investment, and strong leadership is urgently needed to improve the health and well-being of children living with and affected by HIV.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Chronic diseases, such as opioid use disorder (OUD) require a multifaceted scientific approach to address their evolving complexity. The Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science's (Council) four nursing science priority areas (precision health; global health, determinants of health, and big data/data analytics) were established to provide a framework to address current complex health problems.<h4>Purpose</h4>To examine OUD research through the nursing science priority areas and evaluate the appropriateness of the priority areas as a framework for research on complex health conditions.<h4>Method</h4>OUD was used as an exemplar to explore the relevance of the nursing science priorities for future research.<h4>Findings</h4>Research in the four priority areas is advancing knowledge in OUD identification, prevention, and treatment. Intersection of OUD research population focus and methodological approach was identified among the priority areas.<h4>Discussion</h4>The Council priorities provide a relevant framework for nurse scientists to address complex health problems like OUD.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>To identify a broad range of research priorities to inform the studies seeking to improve population health outcomes based on the engagement of diverse stakeholders.<h4>Methods</h4>A multi-step, participatory and mixed-methods approach was adopted to solicit and structure the investigative themes from diverse stakeholders. The priority setting exercise involved four key phases: (1) feedback from community leadership; (2) interim ranking survey and focus group discussions during the population health symposium; (3) individual in-depth interviews with stakeholders in the community; and (4) synthesis of the research priorities from the multistep process.<h4>Results</h4>Diverse stakeholders in Singapore, comprising community partnership leaders, health care and social service providers, users of population health services, patients and caregivers, participated in the research priority setting exercise. Initial 14 priorities were identified from six community leadership feedback, 42 survey responses, two focus groups (n = 16) and 95 in-depth interviews. The final integrated research agenda identified six priorities: empower residents and patients to take charge of their health; improve care transition and management through relationship building and communication; enhance health-social care interface; improve respite care services for long-term caregivers; develop primary care as a driving force for care integration; and capacity building for service providers. Selected research questions in each priority area were also generated to develop novel models of care, foster collaboration, implement optimal services and enhance understanding of the end users' care needs.<h4>Conclusions</h4>This study illuminates that greater community engagement in research priority setting for population health can facilitate the formulation of evidence-based research agendas that matter to the care providers and service users in the community. The outcomes derived from this exercise will help focus researchers' efforts through which meaningful gains can be made for population health.
Project description:The participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs' decision-making process to participate in research.We used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels.The GPs' decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs' decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs' participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs' confidence in taking part in future research.The key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs' social environments and research support.
Project description:Members of the public are increasingly consulted over health care and research priorities. Patient involvement in determining cancer research priorities, however, has remained underdeveloped. This paper presents the findings of the first consultation to be conducted with UK cancer patients concerning research priorities. The study adopted a participatory approach using a collaborative model that sought joint ownership of the study with people affected by cancer. An exploratory, qualitative approach was used. Consultation groups were the main method, combining focus group and nominal group techniques. Seventeen groups were held with a total of 105 patients broadly representative of the UK cancer population. Fifteen areas for research were identified. Top priority areas included the impact cancer has on life, how to live with cancer and related support issues; risk factors and causes of cancer; early detection and prevention. Although biological and treatment related aspects of science were identified as important, patients rated the management of practical, social and emotional issues as a higher priority. There is a mismatch between the research priorities identified by participants and the current UK research portfolio. Current research activity should be broadened to reflect the priorities of people affected by the disease.
Project description:Using an innovative approach, we identified research priorities in palliative care to guide future research initiatives. We searched 7 databases (2005-2012) for review articles published on the topics of palliative and hospice-end-of-life care. The identified research recommendations (n?=?648) fell into 2 distinct categories: (1) ways to improve methodological approaches and (2) specific topic areas in need of future study. The most commonly cited priority within the theme of methodological approaches was the need for enhanced rigor. Specific topics in need of future study included perspectives and needs of patients, relatives, and providers; underrepresented populations; decision-making; cost-effectiveness; provider education; spirituality; service use; and interdisciplinary approaches to delivering palliative care. This review underscores the need for additional research on specific topics and methodologically rigorous research to inform health policy and practice.
Project description:Nutritional rickets and osteomalacia are common in dark-skinned and migrant populations. Their global incidence is rising due to changing population demographics, failing prevention policies and missing implementation strategies. The calcium deprivation spectrum has hypocalcaemic (seizures, tetany and dilated cardiomyopathy) and late hypophosphataemic (rickets, osteomalacia and muscle weakness) complications. This article reviews sustainable prevention strategies and identifies areas for future research.The global rickets consensus recognises the equal contribution of vitamin D and dietary calcium in the causation of calcium deprivation and provides a three stage categorisation for sufficiency, insufficiency and deficiency. For rickets prevention, 400 IU daily is recommended for all infants from birth and 600 IU in pregnancy, alongside monitoring in antenatal and child health surveillance programmes. High-risk populations require lifelong supplementation and food fortification with vitamin D or calcium. Future research should identify the true prevalence of rickets and osteomalacia, their role in bone fragility and infant mortality, and best screening and public health prevention tools.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities suffer from disproportionately poorer health than the general population. This issue has been recently exemplified by the large numbers of infection rates and deaths caused by covid-19 in BAME populations. Future research has the potential to improve health outcomes for these groups. High quality research priority setting is crucial to effectively consider the needs of the most vulnerable groups of the population.<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this systematic review is to identify existing research priority studies conducted for BAME health and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting.<h4>Method</h4>Included studies were identified by searching Medline, Cinnahl, PsychINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, as well as searches in grey literature. Search terms included "research priority setting", "research prioritisation", "research agenda", "Black and minority ethnic", "ethnic group". Studies were included if they identified or elicited research priorities for BAME health and if they outlined a process of conducting a research prioritisation exercise. A checklist of Nine Common Themes of Good Practice in research priority setting was used as a methodological framework to evaluate the research priority processes of each study.<h4>Results</h4>Out of 1514 citations initially obtained, 17 studies were included in the final synthesis. Topic areas for their research prioritisation exercise included suicide prevention, knee surgery, mental health, preterm birth, and child obesity. Public and patient involvement was included in eleven studies. Methods of research prioritisation included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys, focus groups and interviews. The quality of empirical evidence was diverse. None of the exercises followed all good practice principles as outlined in the checklist. Areas that were lacking in particular were: the lack of a comprehensive approach to guide the process; limited use of criteria to guide discussion around priorities; unequal or no representation from ethnic minorities, and poor evaluation of their own processes.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Research priority setting practices were found to mostly not follow good practice guidelines which aim to ensure rigour in priority setting activities and support the inclusion of BAME communities in establishing the research agenda. Research is unlikely to deliver useful findings that can support relevant research and positive change for BAME communities unless they fulfil areas of good practice such as inclusivity of key stakeholders' input, planning for implementation of identified priorities, criteria for deciding on priorities, and evaluation of their processes in research priority setting.
Project description:Background:The Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a longitudinal partnered program of research in Western Canada that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in long-term care settings. This program of research includes researchers, citizens (persons living with dementia and caregivers of persons living in long-term care), and stakeholders (representatives from provincial and regional health authorities, owner-operators of long-term care homes). The aim of this paper is to describe how we used priority setting methods with citizens and stakeholders to identify ten priorities for research using the TREC data. Methods:We adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method to ensure our citizens and stakeholders could identify priorities within the existing TREC data. We administered an online survey to our citizen and stakeholder partners. An in-person priority setting workshop was held in March 2019 in Alberta, Canada to establish consensus on ten research priorities. The in-person workshop used a nominal group technique and involved two rounds of small group prioritization and one final full group ranking. Results:We received 72 online survey respondents and 19 persons (citizens, stakeholders) attended the in-person priority setting workshop. The workshop resulted in an unranked list of their ten research priorities for the TREC program. These priorities encompassed a range of non-clinical topics, including: influence of staffing (ratios, type of care provider) on residents and staff work life, influence of the work environment on resident outcomes, and the impact of quality improvement activities on residents and staff. Conclusions:This modified priority setting approach provided citizens and stakeholders with an opportunity to identify their own research priorities within the TREC program, without the external pressures of researchers. These priorities will inform the secondary analyses of the TREC data and the development of new projects. This modified priority setting may be a useful approach for research teams trying to engage their non-academic partners and to identify areas for future research.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Several challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>The purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology.<h4>Methods</h4>A three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis?<h4>Conclusions</h4>The results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.