Prioritizing research: Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence

Brian S Buckley, Adrian M Grant, Douglas G Tincello, Adrian S Wagg, Lester Firkins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AIMS: Research often neglects important gaps in existing evidence. Throughout healthcare, clinicians and patients face avoidable "clinical uncertainties" daily, making decisions about treatments without reliable evidence about their effects. This partnership of patients and clinicians aimed to identify and prioritize "clinical uncertainties" relating to treatment of urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: UK clinician and patient organizations whose remit includes UI were invited to participate. Participating organizations consulted memberships to identify "uncertainties" affecting treatment decisions. "Uncertainties" were also identified in published research recommendations. Prioritization involved two phases: shortlisting of "uncertainties" by organizations; patient-clinician prioritization using established consensus methods. Prioritized "uncertainties" were verified by checking any available relevant up-to-date published systematic reviews. RESULTS: Thirty organizations were invited; 8 patient and 13 clinician organizations participated. Consultation generated 417 perceived "uncertainties," research recommendations 131. Refining, excluding and combining produced a list of 226. Prioritization shortlisted 29 "uncertainties," then a "top ten" (5 submitted by clinicians, 4 by patients, 1 from research recommendations). CONCLUSIONS: The partnership successfully developed and tested a systematic and transparent methodology for patient-clinician consultation and consensus. Through consensus, unanswered research questions of importance to patients and clinicians were identified and prioritized. The final list reflects the heterogeneity of populations, treatments and evidence needs associated with UI. Some prioritized "uncertainties" relate to treatments that are widely used yet whose effects are not thoroughly understood, some to access to care, some to precise surgical questions. Research needs to address the uncertainties range from systematic reviewing to primary research. Neurourol. Urodynam. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)708-714
Number of pages7
JournalNeurourology and Urodynamics
Volume29
Issue number5
Early online date21 Sep 2009
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Urinary Incontinence
Caregivers
Uncertainty
Research
Consensus
Referral and Consultation
Therapeutics
Population Characteristics
Decision Making
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • patients' perspective
  • prioritization
  • urinary incontinence

Cite this

Prioritizing research : Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence. / Buckley, Brian S; Grant, Adrian M; Tincello, Douglas G; Wagg, Adrian S; Firkins, Lester.

In: Neurourology and Urodynamics, Vol. 29, No. 5, 06.2010, p. 708-714.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Buckley, Brian S ; Grant, Adrian M ; Tincello, Douglas G ; Wagg, Adrian S ; Firkins, Lester. / Prioritizing research : Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence. In: Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2010 ; Vol. 29, No. 5. pp. 708-714.
@article{db11b069294b4540b4386863edf14c31,
title = "Prioritizing research: Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence",
abstract = "AIMS: Research often neglects important gaps in existing evidence. Throughout healthcare, clinicians and patients face avoidable {"}clinical uncertainties{"} daily, making decisions about treatments without reliable evidence about their effects. This partnership of patients and clinicians aimed to identify and prioritize {"}clinical uncertainties{"} relating to treatment of urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: UK clinician and patient organizations whose remit includes UI were invited to participate. Participating organizations consulted memberships to identify {"}uncertainties{"} affecting treatment decisions. {"}Uncertainties{"} were also identified in published research recommendations. Prioritization involved two phases: shortlisting of {"}uncertainties{"} by organizations; patient-clinician prioritization using established consensus methods. Prioritized {"}uncertainties{"} were verified by checking any available relevant up-to-date published systematic reviews. RESULTS: Thirty organizations were invited; 8 patient and 13 clinician organizations participated. Consultation generated 417 perceived {"}uncertainties,{"} research recommendations 131. Refining, excluding and combining produced a list of 226. Prioritization shortlisted 29 {"}uncertainties,{"} then a {"}top ten{"} (5 submitted by clinicians, 4 by patients, 1 from research recommendations). CONCLUSIONS: The partnership successfully developed and tested a systematic and transparent methodology for patient-clinician consultation and consensus. Through consensus, unanswered research questions of importance to patients and clinicians were identified and prioritized. The final list reflects the heterogeneity of populations, treatments and evidence needs associated with UI. Some prioritized {"}uncertainties{"} relate to treatments that are widely used yet whose effects are not thoroughly understood, some to access to care, some to precise surgical questions. Research needs to address the uncertainties range from systematic reviewing to primary research. Neurourol. Urodynam. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.",
keywords = "patients' perspective, prioritization, urinary incontinence",
author = "Buckley, {Brian S} and Grant, {Adrian M} and Tincello, {Douglas G} and Wagg, {Adrian S} and Lester Firkins",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1002/nau.20816",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "708--714",
journal = "Neurourology and Urodynamics",
issn = "0733-2467",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prioritizing research

T2 - Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence

AU - Buckley, Brian S

AU - Grant, Adrian M

AU - Tincello, Douglas G

AU - Wagg, Adrian S

AU - Firkins, Lester

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - AIMS: Research often neglects important gaps in existing evidence. Throughout healthcare, clinicians and patients face avoidable "clinical uncertainties" daily, making decisions about treatments without reliable evidence about their effects. This partnership of patients and clinicians aimed to identify and prioritize "clinical uncertainties" relating to treatment of urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: UK clinician and patient organizations whose remit includes UI were invited to participate. Participating organizations consulted memberships to identify "uncertainties" affecting treatment decisions. "Uncertainties" were also identified in published research recommendations. Prioritization involved two phases: shortlisting of "uncertainties" by organizations; patient-clinician prioritization using established consensus methods. Prioritized "uncertainties" were verified by checking any available relevant up-to-date published systematic reviews. RESULTS: Thirty organizations were invited; 8 patient and 13 clinician organizations participated. Consultation generated 417 perceived "uncertainties," research recommendations 131. Refining, excluding and combining produced a list of 226. Prioritization shortlisted 29 "uncertainties," then a "top ten" (5 submitted by clinicians, 4 by patients, 1 from research recommendations). CONCLUSIONS: The partnership successfully developed and tested a systematic and transparent methodology for patient-clinician consultation and consensus. Through consensus, unanswered research questions of importance to patients and clinicians were identified and prioritized. The final list reflects the heterogeneity of populations, treatments and evidence needs associated with UI. Some prioritized "uncertainties" relate to treatments that are widely used yet whose effects are not thoroughly understood, some to access to care, some to precise surgical questions. Research needs to address the uncertainties range from systematic reviewing to primary research. Neurourol. Urodynam. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

AB - AIMS: Research often neglects important gaps in existing evidence. Throughout healthcare, clinicians and patients face avoidable "clinical uncertainties" daily, making decisions about treatments without reliable evidence about their effects. This partnership of patients and clinicians aimed to identify and prioritize "clinical uncertainties" relating to treatment of urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: UK clinician and patient organizations whose remit includes UI were invited to participate. Participating organizations consulted memberships to identify "uncertainties" affecting treatment decisions. "Uncertainties" were also identified in published research recommendations. Prioritization involved two phases: shortlisting of "uncertainties" by organizations; patient-clinician prioritization using established consensus methods. Prioritized "uncertainties" were verified by checking any available relevant up-to-date published systematic reviews. RESULTS: Thirty organizations were invited; 8 patient and 13 clinician organizations participated. Consultation generated 417 perceived "uncertainties," research recommendations 131. Refining, excluding and combining produced a list of 226. Prioritization shortlisted 29 "uncertainties," then a "top ten" (5 submitted by clinicians, 4 by patients, 1 from research recommendations). CONCLUSIONS: The partnership successfully developed and tested a systematic and transparent methodology for patient-clinician consultation and consensus. Through consensus, unanswered research questions of importance to patients and clinicians were identified and prioritized. The final list reflects the heterogeneity of populations, treatments and evidence needs associated with UI. Some prioritized "uncertainties" relate to treatments that are widely used yet whose effects are not thoroughly understood, some to access to care, some to precise surgical questions. Research needs to address the uncertainties range from systematic reviewing to primary research. Neurourol. Urodynam. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

KW - patients' perspective

KW - prioritization

KW - urinary incontinence

U2 - 10.1002/nau.20816

DO - 10.1002/nau.20816

M3 - Article

C2 - 19771595

VL - 29

SP - 708

EP - 714

JO - Neurourology and Urodynamics

JF - Neurourology and Urodynamics

SN - 0733-2467

IS - 5

ER -