Deliberative dialogue (DD) may be relatively new in health research but has a rich history in fostering public engagement in political issues. Dialogic approaches are future-facing, comprising structured discussions and consensus building activities geared to the collective identification of actionable and contextualized solutions. Relying heavily on a need for co-production and shared leadership, these approaches seek to garner meaningful collaborations between researchers and knowledge users, such as healthcare providers, decision-makers, patients, and the public. In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges, successes, and opportunities arising from public engagement in DD, drawing also upon insights gleaned from our own research, along with the case study presented by Scurr and colleagues. Specifically, we seek to expand discussions related to inclusion, power, and accessibility in DD, highlight the need for scholarship that addresses the epistemic, methodological, and practical aspects of patient and public engagement within dialogic methods, and identify promising practices.

BACKGROUND: A recent Lancet commission called for more research on palliative care in low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries such as Colombia. A research priority setting approach has been recommended by The Global Forum for Health Research to address the huge gap in research output between LMIC and high-income countries, with influential health service bodies recommending the active involvement of non-research expert stakeholders in establishing research priorities to address service user needs.
METHODS: Priority setting partnership (PSP) following the four stages of the James Lind Alliance methodology; establishing the partnership, identifying evidence uncertainties, refining questions and uncertainties, and prioritization. Data from MS forms were analysed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 33 stakeholders attended an online PSP workshop and completed the Mentimeter exercise in Microsoft Teams. A total of 48 attended the subsequent in person prioritisation exercise in urban Bogota (n = 22) and rural Popayan (n = 25). The stakeholders were a diverse group of health professionals (physicians, medical students, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists, nutritionist, occupational and speech therapists), financial and administrative staff and patients with life-limiting illness and caregivers. Top research priorities included patient and caregiver needs, service provider education and training, and better integration of palliative care with cancer and non-cancer services. The key challenges included a lack of interest in palliative care research, along with funding, time and resource constraints. Key solutions included collaboration across disciplines and settings, highlighting benefits of palliative research to help secure adequate resources, and multicentre, mixed method research, with patient involvement from the research development stage.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this PSP should be disseminated among palliative care associations worldwide to inform international multicentre studies, and among governmental and nongovernmental organisations that promote research in Colombia. A focus on patient and family caregiver palliative care needs in Colombia should be prioritised.

While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific \"focus prompt,\" (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.

Deliberative dialogue (DD) may be relatively new in health research but has a rich history in fostering public engagement in political issues. Dialogic approaches are future-facing, comprising structured discussions and consensus building activities geared to the collective identification of actionable and contextualized solutions. Relying heavily on a need for coproduction and shared leadership, these approaches seek to garner meaningful collaborations between researchers and knowledge users, such as healthcare providers, decision-makers, patients, and the public. In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges, successes, and opportunities arising from public engagement in DD, drawing also upon insights gleaned from our own research, along with the case study presented by Scurr and colleagues. Specifically, we seek to expand discussions related to inclusion, power, and accessibility in DD, highlight the need for scholarship that addresses the epistemic, methodological, and practical aspects of patient and public engagement within dialogic methods, and identify promising practices.

UNASSIGNED: Priority setting in mental health research is arguably lost in translation. Decades of effort has led to persistent repetition in what the research priorities of people with lived-experience of mental ill-health are.
UNASSIGNED: This was a narrative review and synthesis of published literature reporting mental health research priorities (2011-2023).
UNASSIGNED: A narrative framework was established with the questions: (1) who has been involved in priority setting? With whom have priorities been set? Which priorities have been established and for whom? What progress has been made? And, whose priorities are being progressed?
UNASSIGNED: Seven papers were identified. Two were Australian, one Welsh, one English, one was from Chile and another Brazilian and one reported on a European exercise across 28 countries (ROAMER). Hundreds of priorities were listed in all exercises. Prioritisation mostly occured from survey rankings and/or workshops (using dots, or post-it note voting). Most were dominated by clinicians, academics and government rather than people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer, family and kinship group members.
UNASSIGNED: One lived-experience research led survey was identified. Few studies reported lived-experience design and development involvement. Five of the seven papers reported responses, but no further progress on priorities being met was reported.
This review followed PRISMA guidance for search strategy development and systematic review and reporting. This was not a systematic review with or without meta-analysis and the method did not fit for registration with PROSPERO.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) research and policy decisions are rarely made in partnership with people with SCI, making them less relevant, applicable, and used by those whom the decisions are intended to support. Across disciplines, consensus methods have been promoted as a viable solution for supporting shared research and policy-based decision-making. In this paper, we describe a partnered approach between academic researchers and the Ontario SCI Alliance, a non-profit, SCI community mobilization network to co-develop and co-disseminate a community-based consensus exercise. The community-based consensus exercise included two modified Delphi surveys and one in-person retreat. The partnership\'s goal with this exercise was to facilitate shared decision-making for the development of their upcoming strategic plan. We then interviewed partners and participants from the Delphi and in-person retreat to discuss successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the exercise. Survey 1 was disseminated to over 2,500 members of the Ontario SCI community and received 374 responses (276 coming from people with SCI). Survey 2 had 118 responses, with 87 coming from people with SCI. The retreat had 73 attendees, including people with SCI, family/friends of people with SCI, clinicians, researchers, and SCI community and research organization staff/volunteers. The retreat included a presentation of the survey results, a clinician/researcher panel, and externally-facilitated working groups. All survey responses and retreat materials were synthesized. Using the synthesized feedback, the Ontario SCI Alliance was able to implement several changes for the Ontario SCI community, including higher-quality primary care experiences (reduced wait times, more accessible examining rooms), the development of a wound care strategy with the Ontario government, and an advocacy campaign for public coverage for catheters and urinary care supplies. From the five interviews conducted, five themes were co-constructed regarding the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the exercise: (1) Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility; (2) Partnership; (3) Design Considerations; (4) Transparency and Clarity in Communication; and (5) Sustainability. Findings from this community case study demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a community-level consensus exercise among an equity-deserving group while providing detailed guidance for how to ensure future research and policy-based decision-making is shared across diverse knowledge users.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition causing disability and high healthcare costs. Alberta faces challenges with unnecessary referrals to specialists and long wait times. A province-wide standardized clinical care pathway based on evidence-based best practices can improve efficiency, reduce wait times, and enhance patient outcomes. Implementing such pathways has shown success in other areas of healthcare in Alberta. This study developed a clinical decision-making pathway to standardize care and minimize uncertainty in assessment, diagnosis, and management.
METHODS: A systematic rapid review identified existing tools and evidence that could support a comprehensive LBP clinical decision-making tool. Forty-seven healthcare professionals participated in four rounds of a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on the assessment, diagnosis, and management of patients presenting to primary care with LBP in Alberta, Canada. This project was a collaborative effort between Alberta Health Services\' Bone and Joint Health Strategic Clinical Network (BJHSCN) and the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI).
RESULTS: A province-wide expert panel consisting of professionals from different health disciplines and regions collaborated to develop an LBP clinical decision-making tool. This tool presents clinical care pathways for acute, subacute, and chronic LBP. It also provides guidance for history-taking, physical examination, patient education, and management.
CONCLUSIONS: This clinical decision-making tool will help to standardize care, provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of LBP, and assist in clinical decision-making for primary care providers in both public and private sectors.

UNASSIGNED: Brachial plexus birth injuries (BPBI) can have lifelong effects on the development and functional use of the upper extremity. Currently there is no agreement with regards to what patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures should be used. Therefore, the ability to compare the effects of treatment between individuals and institutions is challenging. This study aimed to achieve consensus among clinicians on the use of PRO measures within this patient group to allow for improved comparison of treatments and outcomes in the future.
UNASSIGNED: Online, a 3 round Delphi survey was completed by 35 international multi-disciplinary specialist centers.
UNASSIGNED: All respondents (100%) agreed that PRO measures are useful for clinical evaluation and patient treatment. None of the outcome measures scored >75% agreement for ability to assess responsiveness and current state in children with BPBI as most outcome measures were judged as not specific for BPBI. Additionally, participant centers were asked their perspective on the best available PRO option for each of the 3 categories: functional use of the upper limb, quality of life and pain. This resulted in endorsement by the participant centers of the Brachial Plexus Outcome Measure - Self-Evaluation, the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, and Visual Analogue Scale/Brief Pain Inventory respectively.
UNASSIGNED: International specialists in BPBI agree that PRO measures are important to use both clinically and in research in children aged 5 years and above.
Patient-reported outcome measures were judged as useful both in clinic and in research for brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI), according to a panel of specialized centers.Currently available outcome measures were judged as not specific for BPBI.The panel endorsed the following measures as best available: the Brachial Plexus Outcome Measure – Self-Evaluation scale for functional evaluation, the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory for disease-related quality of life and the Faces Pain Scale - Revised/Visual Analogue Scale/Brief Pain Inventory for pain.

There is increasing recognition of the need for researchers to collect and report data that can illuminate health inequities. In pain research, routinely collecting equity-relevant data has the potential to inform about the generalisability of findings; whether the intervention has differential effects across strata of society; or it could be used to guide population targeting for clinical studies. Developing clarity and consensus on what data should be collected and how to collect it is required to prompt researchers to further consider equity issues in the planning, conduct, interpretation, and reporting of research. The overarching aim of the \'Identifying Social Factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes\' (ISSHOOs) in pain research project is to provide researchers in the pain field with recommendations to guide the routine collection of equity-relevant data. The design of this project is consistent with the methods outlined in the \'Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines\' and involves 4 stages: (i) Scoping review; (ii) Delphi Study; (iii) Consensus Meeting; and (iv) Focus Groups. This stakeholder-engaged project will produce a minimum dataset that has global, expert consensus. Results will be disseminated along with explanation and elaboration as a crucial step towards facilitating future action to address avoidable disparities in pain outcomes.

Developing ambulatory health services (AHS) of optimal quality is a pending issue for many health systems at a global level, especially in middle- and low-income countries. An effective health response requires indicators to measure the quality of care that are context-specific and feasible for routine monitoring. This paper aimed to design and validate indicators for assessing the technical and interpersonal quality dimensions for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and acute respiratory infections (ARI) care in AHS. The study was conducted in two stages. First, technical and user-centered-based indicators of quality of care for T2D and ARI care were designed following international recommendations, mainly from the American Diabetes Association standards and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We then assessed the validity, reliability, relevance, and feasibility of the proposed indicators implementing the modified Delphi technique. A panel of 17 medical experts from five countries scored the indicators using two electronic questionnaires, one for each reason for consultation selected, sent by email in two sequential rounds of rating. We defined the levels of consensus according to the overall median for each performance category, which was established as the threshold. Selected indicators included those with scores equal to or higher than the threshold. We designed 36 T2D indicators, of which 16 were validated for measuring the detection of risks and complications, glycemic control, pharmacological treatment, and patient-centered care. Out of the 22 indicators designed for ARI, we validated 10 for diagnosis, appropriate prescription of antimicrobials, and patient-centered care. The validated indicators showed consistency for the dimensions analyzed. Hence, they proved to be a potentially reliable and valuable tool for monitoring the performance of the various T2D and ARI care processes in AHS. Further research will be needed to verify the applicability of the validated indicators in routine clinical practice.