UNASSIGNED: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with glomerular disease. Despite the fact that mechanisms underpinning CV disease risk in this population are likely distinct from other forms of kidney disease, treatment and preventive strategies tend to be extrapolated from studies of patients with undifferentiated chronic kidney disease (CKD). There is an unmet need to delineate the pathophysiology of CV disease in patients with glomerular disease, establish unique risk factors, and identify novel therapeutic targets for disease prevention. The aims of this narrative review are to summarize the existing knowledge regarding the epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, and management of CV disease in patients with common glomerular disease, highlight the patient perspective, and propose specific areas for future study.
UNASSIGNED: The literature for this narrative review was accessed using common research search engines, including PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline, and Google Scholar. Information for the patient perspective section was collected through iterative discussions with a patient partner.
UNASSIGNED: We reviewed the epidemiology, molecular mechanisms of disease, management approaches, and the patient perspective in relation to CV disease in patients with glomerulopathies. Throughout, we have highlighted the current knowledge and have discussed future research approaches, both clinical and translational, while integrating the patient perspective.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with glomerular disease have significant CV disease risk driven by multifactorial, molecular mechanisms originating from their glomerular disease but complicated by existing comorbidities, kidney disease, and medication side effects. The current approach to risk stratification and treatment relies heavily on existing data from CKD patients, but this may not always be appropriate given the unique pathophysiology and mechanisms associated with CV disease risk in patients with glomerular disease. We highlight the need for ongoing glomerular disease-focused studies aimed to better delineate CV disease risk, while integrating the patient perspective.
UNASSIGNED: This is a narrative review and does not represent a comprehensive and systematic review of the literature.
UNASSIGNED: Les maladies cardiovasculaires sont une cause majeure de morbidité et de mortalité chez les patients atteints d’une maladie glomérulaire. Bien que les mécanismes qui sous-tendent le risque de maladie cardiovasculaire dans cette population sont probablement distincts des autres formes de néphropathies, le traitement et les stratégies préventives ont tendance à être extrapolés à partir d’études portant sur des patients atteints d’insuffisance rénale chronique indifférenciée. Il existe ainsi un besoin de délimiter la physiopathologie des maladies cardiovasculaires chez les patients atteints d’une maladie glomérulaire, d’établir les facteurs de risque propres à la maladie glomérulaire et d’identifier de nouvelles cibles thérapeutiques pour la prévenir. Les objectifs de cette revue narrative sont de résumer les connaissances existantes concernant l’épidémiologie, les mécanismes moléculaires et la prise en charge des maladies cardiovasculaires chez les patients atteints d’une maladie glomérulaire commune, de mettre en évidence le point de vue des patients et de proposer des domaines précis pour de futures études.
UNASSIGNED: La documentation a été consultée par le biais des moteurs de recherche courants, notamment PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline et Google Scholar. Les points de vue des patients ont été recueillis au moyen de discussions itératives avec un patient partenaire.
UNASSIGNED: Nous avons examiné l’épidémiologie et les mécanismes moléculaires de la maladie, les approches de prise en charge et la perspective des patients en lien avec les maladies cardiovasculaires chez les patients atteints d’une maladie glomérulaire. Nous avons fait état des connaissances actuelles et discuté des approches à envisager pour les recherches futures, tant cliniques que translationnelles, tout en intégrant la perspective du patient.
UNASSIGNED: Les patients atteints d’une maladie glomérulaire présentent un risque significatif de maladie cardiovasculaire associé à des mécanismes moléculaires multifactoriels provenant de la maladie glomérulaire elle-même. Ce risque est compliqué par les comorbidités existantes, la néphropathie et les effets secondaires des médicaments. L’approche actuelle de stratification du risque et de traitement repose en grande partie sur les données existantes pour les patients atteints d’insuffisance rénale chronique; cette approche pourrait ne pas toujours convenir, compte tenu de la physiopathologie unique et des mécanismes associés au risque de maladie cardiovasculaire chez les patients atteints d’une maladie glomérulaire. Nos résultats mettent en lumière le besoin d’études continues, axées sur les maladies glomérulaires, qui visent à mieux cerner le risque de maladies cardiovasculaires chez ces patients, tout en intègrant leur point de vue.
UNASSIGNED: Il s’agit d’une revue narrative; cette étude ne constitue pas une revue exhaustive et systématique de la littérature.

There is limited evidence regarding the needs of older people, including those living with frailty, to inform research priority setting.
This systematic review aimed to identify the range of research priorities of community-dwelling older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty.
Included studies were from economically developed countries and designed to identify the priorities for research or unmet needs of community-dwelling older people. Studies were excluded if they described priorities relating to specific health conditions. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched (January 2010-June 2022), alongside grey literature. Study quality was assessed, but studies were not excluded on the basis of quality. A bespoke data extraction form was used and content analysis undertaken to synthesise findings.
Seventy-five reports were included. Seven explicitly aimed to identify the priorities or unmet needs of frail older people; 68 did not specify frailty as a characteristic. Study designs varied, including priority setting exercises, surveys, interviews, focus groups and literature reviews. Identified priorities and unmet needs were organised into themes: prevention and management, improving health and care service provision, improving daily life, meeting carers\' needs and planning ahead.
Many priority areas were raised by older people, carers and health/care professionals, but few were identified explicitly by/for frail older people. An overarching need was identified for tailored, collaborative provision of care and support.
Review findings provide a valuable resource for researchers and health/care staff wishing to focus their research or service provision on areas of importance for older people.

In September 2022, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) organised a workshop in Estoril, Portugal, on the \'Review and Revision of the System of Radiological Protection: A Focus on Research Priorities\'. The workshop, which was a side event of the European Radiation Protection Week, offered an opportunity to comment on a recent paper published by ICRP on areas of research to support the System of Radiological Protection. Altogether, about 150 individuals participated in the workshop. After the workshop, 16 of the 30 organisations in formal relations with ICRP provided written feedback. All participants and organisations followed ICRP\'s view that further research in various areas will offer additional support in improving the System in the short, medium, and long term. In general, it was emphasised that any research should be outcome-focused in that it should improve protection of people or the environment. Many research topics mentioned by the participants were in line with those already identified by ICRP in the paper noted above. In addition, further ideas were expressed such as, for example, that lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic with regards to the non-radiological social, economic and environment impacts, should be analysed for their usefulness to enhance radiological protection, and that current protection strategies and application of current radiological protection principles may need to be adapted to military scenarios like those observed recently during the military conflict in the Ukraine or the detonation of a nuclear weapon. On a broader perspective, it was discussed how radiation research and radiological protection can contribute towards the Sustainable Development Goals announced by the United Nations in 2015. This paper summarises the views expressed during the workshop and the major take home messages identified by ICRP.

OBJECTIVE: Identifying cancer nursing research priorities is central to influencing the direction of cancer care research. The aim of this rapid review was to explore research priorities identified by oncology nurses for cancer care delivery between 2019 and 2022.
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis informed the design of the rapid review. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PUBMED, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between December 1st, 2018, and September 30th, 2022. This timeframe was chosen to account for the latest relevant evidence synthesis, as well as changes in cancer care necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Quality Assessment of Diverse Studies tool was used to appraise quality.
RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. Many of the research priorities identified were influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The top cancer nursing research priority identified was the role of technology in improving patient and caregiver symptoms and health outcomes. Other most prevalent research priorities were focused on symptom management, culturally sensitive palliative and psychosocial care, early/integrated palliative care, financial toxicity, modifiable risk factors related to social determinants of health, public and patient involvement in research, and oncology nurses\' well-being and scope of practice.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate a need to steer a strategic programme of cancer nursing research towards digitalisation in cancer care to meet the current needs of people living with cancer and their caregivers. However, cancer nurses\' burnout, staff shortages and disparities in specialist education will hinder the implementation of certain models of care.

Few funding sources have explicitly supported systems-wide research to identify mechanisms for improving access, service delivery, outcomes and wellbeing for autistic transition-age youth and young adults. We aimed to integrate findings from research produced through a five-year federal Autism Transition Research Project (ATRP) cooperative agreement. This capstone review sought to: (1) map the body of scientific evidence that emerged from this federal award, and (2) identify remaining evidence gaps to inform future autism transition services research. We used scoping review methods to assess 31 ATRP-funded published scientific studies. We charted study characteristics, topical domains, socio-ecological levels of variables, focus on equity, and inclusion of autistic participants. We evaluated how these topics were addressed across studies to identify continued gaps in the evidence base. Compared to prior published reviews and research agendas, we found improvements in characterization of study participants, broader examination of socio-ecological correlates, and examination of multiple outcome domains. However, we also identified continued deficits in inclusion of autistic study participants, use of multisectoral data, and research with a strong focus on equity. Our recommended priorities for autism transition services research to facilitate healthy life outcomes and wellbeing included: continued analysis of population-level data and improved data infrastructure; development of service delivery methods and interventions that target marginalized groups; expanded research to inform improvements in the performance and coordination of complex service ecosystems that interface with autistic youth; and bolstering the roles of autistic research participants.

The health research agenda has historically been led by researchers; however, their priorities may not necessarily align with those of patients, caregivers and clinicians. Research priority setting initiatives identify and prioritise topics which lack evidence. This is particularly important in plastic surgery, a speciality lacking high-quality evidence to definitively answer many common clinical questions. Research priorities direct research activity and funding, so their selection process must be representative and transparent. This review appraised all priority setting initiatives in plastic surgery using the reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE).
OVID Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) repository were searched (inception - 11/06/21) using search terms for \'research priority setting\' and \'plastic and reconstructive surgery\'. Dual-author screening and data extraction were conducted, according to PRISMA.
Of 3899 de-duplicated citations, 17 were included. Most studies were conducted in national (14/17), high-income (16/17) settings. More priority setting initiatives focussed on burns (6/17) and hand surgery (4/17) than other subspecialties. The JLA (5/17) and qualitative (5/17) approaches were most used for prioritisation, followed by Delphi techniques (3/17), other surveys (3/17) and mixed methods (1/17). A minority included patient (8/17) or multi-disciplinary (8/17) stakeholders. Few reported strategies for implementing research priorities (6/17) or measuring their impact (2/17).
Stakeholders from lower-income countries are underrepresented in priority setting initiatives for plastic surgery, despite the global burden of disease. Future studies should recruit more patient and multidisciplinary stakeholders, to achieve meaningful consensus. Clear implementation strategies are needed to maximise impact.

UNASSIGNED: Identification of national research agendas for mental health and disability can be supported by well-designed research priority-setting studies. Few low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have undertaken such studies.
UNASSIGNED: To identify mental health and disability research priorities in Ghana.
UNASSIGNED: A mixed methods study comprising a rapid review, research priority ranking survey, and research capacity needs assessment survey was employed. Participants in the surveys included five expert pools identified from online search and existing database on mental health civil society organisations/non-governmental organisations. The research priority ranking was completed in two stages, using the Child and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify priority questions for immediate and short term (0 to 5 years) and medium to long term (>5 years) in stage two. Both surveys were deployed online using google forms. Analysis for the ranking survey involved computing total scores from the CHNRI criteria and generating ranks for the research questions.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 68 experts (97% response rate), generated 94 and 92 questions for the short and long term, respectively. Forty experts (58% response rate) completed the ranking stage. The top 10 ranked research questions included: 4 questions addressing health systems; 2 questions on epidemiology; and 4 questions on interventions. All research questions were considered urgent and should be conducted in the immediate to short term (0-5 years). The methodological capacity of researchers to conduct disability and mental health research is weak.
UNASSIGNED: Our approach has generated an agenda for mental health and disability research priorities for Ghana and demonstrated that it is feasible to employ a systematic methodology for research priority setting that includes key parameters of context and research capacity.

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.
The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.
We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).
Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.
To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

BACKGROUND: This scoping review provides a thorough analysis of how stakeholders have so far been involved in research priority setting. The review describes, synthesizes, and evaluates research priority setting projects not only for the field of health-as previous reviews have done-but does so on a much broader scale for any research area.
METHODS: A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reflecting the importance of grey literature, Google Scholar and relevant websites were also screened for eligible publications. A computational approach was then used for the study selection. The final screening for inclusion was done manually.
RESULTS: The scoping review encompasses 731 research priority setting projects published until the end of 2020. Overall, the projects were conducted within the realm of 50 subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Key learnings include that nearly all priority setting projects aimed to identify research priorities for the field of health (93%), particularly for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. Only 6% of the projects were not health-related and 1% identified research priorities at the interface between health and a non-health area. Over time, 30 different stakeholder groups took part in research priority setting. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Nearly two thirds of all projects have been conducted in Europe and North America. Overall, only 9% of the projects emphasized the importance of stakeholders in their goals and rationales and actively involved them. In around a quarter of the projects, stakeholders deliberated on their research priorities throughout the entire process.
CONCLUSIONS: By mapping out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting, this review guides future efforts to involve stakeholders effectively, inclusively, and transparently, which in turn may increase the overall value of research for society. As a practical addition to this review, the first worldwide research priority setting database was created: https://ois.lbg.ac.at/en/project-database . The database contains all the projects analyzed for this review and is constantly updated with the latest published research priority setting projects.
Involving stakeholders already at the beginning of the research process when deciding what to research is called “research priority setting”. Research priority setting brings research closer to the needs and concerns of its stakeholders, particularly patients, family members, friends, carers and ordinary citizens. There is a general need to map out the complex landscape of stakeholder involvement in research priority setting. I found 731 projects that asked stakeholders to identify priorities for research. The projects were conducted along 50 different subject areas ranging from agriculture and environment over health to social work and technology. Most projects identified research priorities for nursing and care, cancer, pediatrics, and mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. The stakeholders most frequently asked to identify research priorities were doctors, patients, academics/researchers, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, family members, friends, and carers. Overall, half of all projects explicitly mentioned that involving stakeholders is important. Around one quarter of all projects also actively involved patients and the public. In around one quarter of all projects, stakeholders deliberated on their priorities for research throughout the entire process. As researchers are still skeptical towards the benefits of involving stakeholders in research priority setting, future research on this matter is greatly needed.

The Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) formed a team to develop a necessary expansion of the 2019-2022 ONS Research Agenda, with a focus on racism and cancer care disparities.
A multimethod consensus-building approach was used to develop and refine the research priorities. A panel of oncology nurse scientists and equity scholars with expertise in health disparities conducted a rapid review of the literature, consulted with experts and oncology nurses, and reviewed priorities from funding agencies.
Critical gaps in the literature were identified and used to develop priority areas for oncology nursing research, practice, and workforce development.
This is the first article in a two-part series that discusses structural racism and health inequities within oncology nursing. In this article, three priority areas for oncology nursing research are presented; in the second article, strategies to improve cancer disparities and equity and diversity in the oncology workforce are described.
Research priorities are presented to inform future research that will provide methods and tools to increase health equity and reduce structural racism in oncology nursing practice, research, education, policy, and advocacy.