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

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 identi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurourology and urodynamics 2010-06, Vol.29 (5), p.708-714
Hauptverfasser: Buckley, Brian S., Grant, Adrian M., Tincello, Douglas G., Wagg, Adrian S., Firkins, Lester
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 714
container_issue 5
container_start_page 708
container_title Neurourology and urodynamics
container_volume 29
creator Buckley, Brian S.
Grant, Adrian M.
Tincello, Douglas G.
Wagg, Adrian S.
Firkins, Lester
description 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. 29:708–714, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/nau.20816
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733567269</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733567269</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3976-f693cca7d394f43d930095ea68e67efadd779316c9f4bfee994c818b037b27d33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFO3DAQhq2qVVm2PfQFKt-qSgTsOPHE3BBqgQptUQtqb5bXmYAh62xtR3T7LDwshl3g1NOMRt__ezw_IR842-WMlXvejLsla7h8RSa8LlkhAeA1mTAQoigrCVtkO8ZrxlgjKvWWbHEFwGtVT8jdWXBDcMn9c_6SBoxogr3ap2cmOfQp7lBrAoZcjW-p7Z131hkf6e0Qbh4kabjEdIUhN9S1WeK61SO7fDJG6hbLISTj08bA9HT0FvPIZR4jdZ6OwXkTVrm1Qx56zMA78qYzfcT3mzolF1-_nB8eF6ffj04OD04LKxTIopNKWGugFarqKtEqwZiq0cgGJWBn2hZACS6t6qp5h6hUZRvezJmAeZlVYko-rX2XYfgzYkx64aLFvjcehzHqfMZaQpmfmZLPa9KGIcaAnc7fXOS9NWf6IQuds9CPWWT248Z1nC-wfSE3x8_A3hq4dT2u_u-kZwcXT5bFWuFiwr_PChNutAQBtf41O9LfxOwHNOc_9W9xD9Scp30</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733567269</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prioritizing research: Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Full Collection</source><creator>Buckley, Brian S. ; Grant, Adrian M. ; Tincello, Douglas G. ; Wagg, Adrian S. ; Firkins, Lester</creator><creatorcontrib>Buckley, Brian S. ; Grant, Adrian M. ; Tincello, Douglas G. ; Wagg, Adrian S. ; Firkins, Lester</creatorcontrib><description>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. 29:708–714, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0733-2467</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6777</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/nau.20816</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19771595</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biomedical Research - standards ; Female ; Health Personnel ; Health Priorities ; Humans ; Male ; Organizations ; Patient Participation ; patients' perspectives ; prioritization ; Uncertainty ; Urinary Incontinence</subject><ispartof>Neurourology and urodynamics, 2010-06, Vol.29 (5), p.708-714</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</rights><rights>(c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3976-f693cca7d394f43d930095ea68e67efadd779316c9f4bfee994c818b037b27d33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3976-f693cca7d394f43d930095ea68e67efadd779316c9f4bfee994c818b037b27d33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fnau.20816$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fnau.20816$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19771595$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Buckley, Brian S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grant, Adrian M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tincello, Douglas G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagg, Adrian S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Firkins, Lester</creatorcontrib><title>Prioritizing research: Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence</title><title>Neurourology and urodynamics</title><addtitle>Neurourol. Urodyn</addtitle><description>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. 29:708–714, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biomedical Research - standards</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health Personnel</subject><subject>Health Priorities</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Organizations</subject><subject>Patient Participation</subject><subject>patients' perspectives</subject><subject>prioritization</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>Urinary Incontinence</subject><issn>0733-2467</issn><issn>1520-6777</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcFO3DAQhq2qVVm2PfQFKt-qSgTsOPHE3BBqgQptUQtqb5bXmYAh62xtR3T7LDwshl3g1NOMRt__ezw_IR842-WMlXvejLsla7h8RSa8LlkhAeA1mTAQoigrCVtkO8ZrxlgjKvWWbHEFwGtVT8jdWXBDcMn9c_6SBoxogr3ap2cmOfQp7lBrAoZcjW-p7Z131hkf6e0Qbh4kabjEdIUhN9S1WeK61SO7fDJG6hbLISTj08bA9HT0FvPIZR4jdZ6OwXkTVrm1Qx56zMA78qYzfcT3mzolF1-_nB8eF6ffj04OD04LKxTIopNKWGugFarqKtEqwZiq0cgGJWBn2hZACS6t6qp5h6hUZRvezJmAeZlVYko-rX2XYfgzYkx64aLFvjcehzHqfMZaQpmfmZLPa9KGIcaAnc7fXOS9NWf6IQuds9CPWWT248Z1nC-wfSE3x8_A3hq4dT2u_u-kZwcXT5bFWuFiwr_PChNutAQBtf41O9LfxOwHNOc_9W9xD9Scp30</recordid><startdate>201006</startdate><enddate>201006</enddate><creator>Buckley, Brian S.</creator><creator>Grant, Adrian M.</creator><creator>Tincello, Douglas G.</creator><creator>Wagg, Adrian S.</creator><creator>Firkins, Lester</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201006</creationdate><title>Prioritizing research: Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence</title><author>Buckley, Brian S. ; Grant, Adrian M. ; Tincello, Douglas G. ; Wagg, Adrian S. ; Firkins, Lester</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3976-f693cca7d394f43d930095ea68e67efadd779316c9f4bfee994c818b037b27d33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biomedical Research - standards</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health Personnel</topic><topic>Health Priorities</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Organizations</topic><topic>Patient Participation</topic><topic>patients' perspectives</topic><topic>prioritization</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>Urinary Incontinence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Buckley, Brian S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grant, Adrian M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tincello, Douglas G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagg, Adrian S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Firkins, Lester</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neurourology and urodynamics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Buckley, Brian S.</au><au>Grant, Adrian M.</au><au>Tincello, Douglas G.</au><au>Wagg, Adrian S.</au><au>Firkins, Lester</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prioritizing research: Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence</atitle><jtitle>Neurourology and urodynamics</jtitle><addtitle>Neurourol. Urodyn</addtitle><date>2010-06</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>708</spage><epage>714</epage><pages>708-714</pages><issn>0733-2467</issn><eissn>1520-6777</eissn><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. 29:708–714, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>19771595</pmid><doi>10.1002/nau.20816</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0733-2467
ispartof Neurourology and urodynamics, 2010-06, Vol.29 (5), p.708-714
issn 0733-2467
1520-6777
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733567269
source MEDLINE; Wiley-Blackwell Full Collection
subjects Adult
Biomedical Research - standards
Female
Health Personnel
Health Priorities
Humans
Male
Organizations
Patient Participation
patients' perspectives
prioritization
Uncertainty
Urinary Incontinence
title Prioritizing research: Patients, carers, and clinicians working together to identify and prioritize important clinical uncertainties in urinary incontinence
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T16%3A21%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prioritizing%20research:%20Patients,%20carers,%20and%20clinicians%20working%20together%20to%20identify%20and%20prioritize%20important%20clinical%20uncertainties%20in%20urinary%20incontinence&rft.jtitle=Neurourology%20and%20urodynamics&rft.au=Buckley,%20Brian%20S.&rft.date=2010-06&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=708&rft.epage=714&rft.pages=708-714&rft.issn=0733-2467&rft.eissn=1520-6777&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/nau.20816&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733567269%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733567269&rft_id=info:pmid/19771595&rfr_iscdi=true