OBJECTIVE: Dementia in-patient units (DIU) are mental health wards that care for people living with dementia (PLWD) whose symptoms are causing severe distress or potential risk. DIUs look after some of the most vulnerable and unwell people in society, yet they are environments that are underresearched: a recent systematic review revealed only 36 articles worldwide relating to DIUs. To better understand research priorities in DIUs, we undertook a two-round online Delphi survey of PLWD with experience of DIUs, their carers and professionals who work in DIUs.
RESULTS: Ten research priorities were described and ranked. The top three were how to use non-pharmacological techniques to manage non-cognitive symptoms of dementia, supporting families and better understanding of how to discharge PLWD safely and healthily.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first Delphi consensus to describe DIU research priorities. This paper will help researchers focus on the areas that matter most to people who use DIUs.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research.
METHODS: A mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis.
RESULTS: Participants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities.
CONCLUSIONS: Professionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.

OBJECTIVE: To use robust consensus methods with individuals with lived breast cancer experience to agree the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery in the UK.
METHODS: Research uncertainties related to information and support for breast cancer surgery submitted by patients and carers were analysed thematically to generate summary questions for inclusion in an online Delphi survey. Individuals with lived breast cancer experience completed two Delphi rounds including feedback in which they selected their top 10 research priorities from the list provided. The most highly ranked priorities from the survey were discussed at an in-person prioritisation workshop at which the final top 10 was agreed.
RESULTS: The 543 uncertainties submitted by 156 patients/carers were categorised into 63 summary questions for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Of the 237 individuals completing Round 1, 190 (80.2%) participated in Round 2. The top 25 survey questions were carried forward for discussion at the in-person prioritisation workshop at which 17 participants from across the UK agreed the final top 10 research priorities. Key themes included ensuring patients were fully informed about all treatment options and given balanced, tailored information to support informed decision-making and empower their recovery. Equity of access to treatments including contralateral mastectomy for symmetry was also considered a research priority.
CONCLUSIONS: This process has identified the top 10 research priorities to improve information and support for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Work is now needed to develop studies to address these important questions.

BACKGROUND: James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) produce \'Top 10\' lists of health and care research priorities through a structured, shared decision-making process with patients or service users, carers and health or care professionals who identify questions that are most important to them. To date, over 150 PSPs in different areas of health and care have published research priorities. Some PSPs share similar priorities, which could be combined, promoted and addressed through collaborative research to increase value and reduce research waste.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify overarching themes common to JLA PSP priorities across different areas of health and care.
METHODS: Our analysis included \'Top 10\' research priorities produced by UK-based JLA PSPs between 2016 and 2020. The priorities were coded deductively by the Health Research Classification System (HRCS) health category and research activity. We then carried out online workshops with patients, service users and carers to generate new codes not already captured by this framework. Within each code, multistakeholder inductive thematic analysis was used to identify overarching themes, defined as encompassing priorities from three or more PSPs covering two or more health categories. We used codesign methods to produce an interactive tool for end users to navigate the overarching themes.
RESULTS: Five hundred and fifteen research priorities from 51 PSPs were included in our analysis. The priorities together encompassed 20 of 21 HRCS health categories, the most common being \'generic health relevance\' (22%), \'mental health\' (18%) and \'musculoskeletal\' (14%). We identified 89 overarching themes and subthemes, which we organised into a hierarchy with seven top-level themes: quality of life, caregivers and families, causes and prevention, screening and diagnosis, treatment and management, services and systems and social influences and impacts.
CONCLUSIONS: There are many overarching themes common to research priorities across multiple areas of health and care. To facilitate new research and research funding, we have developed an interactive tool to help researchers, funders and patients or service users to explore these priority topics. This is freely available to download online.
UNASSIGNED: Patients or service users and carers were involved throughout the study, including deciding the aims, designing the study, analysing priorities to identify themes, interpreting and reporting the findings.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred measurement (PCM) emphasizes a holistic approach wherein the voices of patients are reflected in the standardized use of patient-reported outcome and experience measures and are represented throughout the continuum of measurement activities. Given the challenges of routinely integrating patient self-reports into clinical care decisions, the perspectives of all healthcare system stakeholders, especially patients, is necessary to advance the science of PCM. The purpose of the analysis we report on here was to identify patient-driven research priorities for advancing the science of PCM.
METHODS: We analyzed data from seven focus groups that were conducted across British Columbia, Canada and that included a total of 73 patients, using qualitative inductive analysis and constant comparative methods.
RESULTS: We found that the patients conveyed a desire for PCM to contribute to healthcare decisions, specifically that their individual healthcare needs and related priorities as they see them are always front and centre, guiding all healthcare interactions. The patients\' commentaries highlighted intersecting priorities for research on advancing the science of PCM that would help transform care by (1) enhancing the patient-provider relationship, (2) giving voice to patients\' stories, (3) addressing inclusivity, (4) ensuring psychological safety, (5) improving healthcare services and systems to better meet patient needs, and (6) bolstering healthcare system accountability.
CONCLUSIONS: These priorities provide direction for future research efforts that would be positioned to make progress towards better health, better care, and better use of resources for individuals and for society.

暂无摘要。

Attention and awareness regarding concussion injury in Australia have significantly increased in the last decade. Although most of this increase is because of discussion regarding concussions from sporting endeavours, the majority of concussions are from non-sport environments including motor vehicle crashes, workplace incidents, falls, accidents, assault and intimate partner violence. In all cases, hospital EDs are the first point of contact, yet as argued in our Opinion here, there are concerns regarding the consistency of care protocols, because of a number of reasons, as well as management and follow-up clinical practices. Our Opinion is to provide a constructive discussion as well as calling for ACEM to support research to provide evidence-based data. Finally, we provide some recommendations that could be implemented immediately to improve clinical practice for presentations of concussion injuries in EDs.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence has demonstrably improved health care practices and patient outcomes. However, systemic translation of evidence into practice is far from optimal. The reasons are complex, but often because research is not well aligned with health service priorities. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of senior health service executives on two issues: (1) the alignment between local research activity and the needs and priorities of their health services, and (2) the extent to which research is or can be integrated as part of usual health care practice.
METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior health leaders from four large health service organisations that are members of Sydney Health Partners (SHP), one of Australia\'s nationally accredited research translation centres committed to accelerating the translation of research findings into evidence-based health care. The interviews were conducted between November 2022 and January 2023, and were either audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim or recorded in the interviewer field notes. A thematic analysis of the interview data was conducted by two researchers, using the framework method to identify common themes.
RESULTS: Seventeen health executives were interviewed, including chief executives, directors of medical services, nursing, allied health, research, and others in executive leadership roles. Responses to issue (1) included themes on re-balancing curiosity- and priority-driven research; providing more support for research activity within health organisations; and helping health professionals and researchers discuss researchable priorities. Responses to issue (2) included identification of elements considered essential for embedding research in health care; and the need to break down silos between research and health care, as well as within health organisations.
CONCLUSIONS: Health service leaders value research but want more research that aligns with their needs and priorities. Discussions with researchers about those priorities may need some facilitation. Making research a more integrated part of health care will require strong and broad executive leadership, resources and infrastructure, and investing in capacity- and capability-building across health clinicians, managers and executive staff.

BACKGROUND: The views of patients and carers are important for the development of research priorities. This study aimed to determine and compare the top research priorities of cancer patients and carers with those of multidisciplinary clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed patients recovering from cancer surgery at a major tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, and/or their carers between March and July 2023. Consenting patients and carers were provided a list of research priorities according to clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation, as determined in a recent International Delphi study. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each research priority using a 5-item Likert scale (ranging from 1 = very high research priority to 5 = very low research priority).
RESULTS: A total of 101 patients and 50 carers participated in this study. Four areas were identified as research priorities, achieving consensus of highest importance (> 70% rated as \"high\" or \"very high\" priority) by patients, carers, and clinical experts. These were \"optimal composition of prehabilitation programs\" (77% vs. 82% vs. 88%), \"effect of prehabilitation on surgical outcomes\" (85% vs. 90% vs. 95%), \"effect of prehabilitation on functional outcomes\" (83% vs. 86% vs. 79%), and \"effect of prehabilitation on patient reported outcomes\" (78% vs. 84% vs. 79%). Priorities that did not reach consensus of high importance by patients despite reaching consensus of highest importance by experts included \"identifying populations most likely to benefit from prehabilitation\" (70% vs. 76% vs. 90%) and \"defining prehabilitation core outcome measures\" (66% vs. 74% vs. 87%). \"Prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapies\" reached consensus of high importance by patients but not by experts or carers (81% vs. 68% vs. 69%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study delineated the primary prehabilitation research priorities as determined by patients and carers, against those previously identified by clinicians with expertise in prehabilitation. It is recommended that subsequent high-quality research and resource allocation be directed towards these highlighted areas of importance.

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15-39 years) diagnosed with cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs. These needs could be better addressed through research that is focused on the topics that matter most to them. However, there is currently no patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer in Canada. This manuscript describes the early development and project protocol for a priority-setting partnership (PSP) for establishing the top 10 research priorities for AYA cancer in Canada. This project follows the PSP methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in research prioritization. The steps of a JLA PSP include establishing a steering group and project partners, gathering uncertainties, data processing and verifying uncertainties, interim priority setting, and a final priority setting workshop. The AYA cancer PSP will result in a top 10 list of research priorities identified by Canadian AYA patients, caregivers, and clinicians that will be published and shared broadly with the research community. The first steering group meeting was held in April 2023, and the project is ongoing. The establishment of a patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer will catalyze a long-term and impactful research focus and ultimately improve outcomes for AYA patients with cancer in Canada.