UNASSIGNED: Recently, the Concussion James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLAPSP) (Canada) identified serious research gaps regarding diagnosis, management, and access to effective rehabilitation for concussion/mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Our aim was to determine if the same research priorities are important to Australian health professionals working in the concussion/mTBI field.
UNASSIGNED: A survey was distributed via professional networks, social media, professional group listservs, a research project noticeboard, and at conferences. It comprised of 25 of the highest ranked concussion research questions from the JLAPSP. We examined how professionals ranked the research questions and analyzed variation in ranking by clinical role and concussion/mTBI work experience.
UNASSIGNED: Our sample of 187 participants included medical and allied health professionals. Most participants were occupational therapists (22%), physiotherapists (18%), neuropsychologists (17%), and worked in Victoria (47%), New South Whales (18%), or Queensland (15%) in metropolitan areas. Health professionals ranked three research questions highest: identifying methods to predict prolonged recovery; effectiveness of early referral and treatment by a specialized concussion/mTBI team; and implementation studies on upskilling healthcare workers.
UNASSIGNED: The research priorities identified can guide research efforts to improve the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of individuals with concussion/mTBI in Australia.
Health professionals with experience in the assessment and rehabilitation of adults with concussions overwhelmingly agree that there is a need for further research to understand the prognosis and the effectiveness of specialized rehabilitation clinics.The role of healthcare providers in supporting recovery and the long-term health implications of suffering a concussion was identified as a priority.Both pre-clinical and clinical research are identified priorities to determine the effectiveness of biomarkers for concussion and return to activity.Health professionals also call for clinical trials testing management protocols, and implementation trials to support translation of clinical guidelines into practice to understand the role of healthcare providers in rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Emerging biomarker technologies (e.g., MRI, EEG, digital phenotyping, eye-tracking) have potential to move the identification of autism into the first year of life. We investigated the perspectives of parents about the anticipated utility and impact of predicting later autism diagnosis from a biomarker-based test in infancy.
METHODS: Parents of infants were interviewed to ascertain receptiveness and perspectives on early (6-12 months) prediction of autism using emerging biomarker technologies. One group had experience parenting an older autistic child (n=30), and the other had no prior autism parenting experience (n=25). Parent responses were analyzed using inductive qualitative coding methods.
RESULTS: Almost all parents in both groups were interested in predictive testing for autism, with some stating they would seek testing only if concerned about their infant\'s development. The primary anticipated advantage of testing was to enable access to earlier intervention. Parents also described the anticipated emotions they would feel in response to test results, actions they might take upon learning their infant was likely to develop autism, attitudes towards predicting a child\'s future support needs, and the potential impacts of inaccurate prediction.
CONCLUSIONS: In qualitative interviews, parents of infants with and without prior autism experience shared their anticipated motivations and concerns about predictive testing for autism in the first year of life. The primary reported motivators for testing-to have more time to prepare and intervene early-could be constrained by familial resources and service availability. Implications for ethical communication of results, equitable early intervention, and future research are discussed.

UNASSIGNED: The COVID-19 pandemic affected stakeholder engagement in sustainability research projects in many ways. But which effects appear permanent today, after the pandemic ended?
UNASSIGNED: To address this, we interviewed researchers and stakeholders and carried out a survey among European sustainability research projects in 2022.
UNASSIGNED: We find that the pandemic years disrupted stakeholder-based research, also with lasting effects. The forced shift to online modes showed how digital engagement can bring benefits in terms of easier and more efficient stakeholder engagement, but also that important aspects are lost, particularly regarding intensity of collaboration and depth of insights. Whether to go online or stay offline depends largely on the research objective, which stakeholders to involve, and how well researchers and stakeholders already know each other. Most researchers and stakeholders want to continue online collaboration in the long term, especially those with positive online collaboration experiences from the pandemic years.
UNASSIGNED: The pandemic has a long-term impact on stakeholder engagement in research; online engagement cannot replace all benefit of previous in-person interactions with stakeholders, but it has led to digital innovations and expanded the engagement portfolio. Our research has provided qualitative insights into the impact of the pandemic on stakeholder engagement in various sustainability research projects and the implications for the long-term future that are relevant to researchers and funding agencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rise of mental health issues amongst Vietnamese communities in Vietnam and the diaspora. However, there were few resources and no directory of services available for people seeking mental health support in Vietnam. In response to this need, we initiated an engagement project to improve Vietnamese communities\' access to mental health support. This project aimed to involve stakeholders in the development of a directory of resources in order to ensure that it met local needs. The phases of development included: (1) reviewing desk research findings; (2) reviewing the list of mental health support services that we could find; (3) verifying the first draft of the directory; (4) helping disseminate the directory; and (5) updating the directory. In February 2022 the first edition of the mental health directory for Vietnamese and foreigners living in Vietnam was published. In this paper we describe the iterative approach taken to developing a resource that would have maximum utility for the target communities. We describe the process of partnering with people with lived experience, community members and expert stakeholders in this process, and reflect on how this strengthened the outcomes in terms of the relevance of the output, the research uptake and the access for the wider community. We believe that it is important to publish examples of community engagement projects in order to demonstrate good practise and promote increased involvement of communities in research.
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rise of mental health issues amongst Vietnamese communities in Vietnam and those living overseas. However, there are few resources and no directory of services available for people seeking mental health support in Vietnam. In response to this need, the public engagement team at the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit in Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam, worked with local experts and community groups to create a directory of resources available to support mental health. In February 2022, the first edition of the mental health directory for Vietnamese and foreigners living in Vietnam was published. In this paper, we describe the steps we took to developing the resource. We describe the process of partnering with people with lived experience, community members and expert stakeholders in this process, and reflect how their involvement helped create a more relevant resource.

UNASSIGNED: Breastfeeding impacts positively on multiple health outcomes, but < 50% of UK women breastfeed at 8 weeks. Women with long-term conditions face additional challenges in breastfeeding.
UNASSIGNED: To synthesise global and UK evidence to co-create an implementation and evaluation toolkit for cost-effective breastfeeding support in the NHS.
UNASSIGNED: Evidence syntheses with stakeholder engagement.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic reviews examined effectiveness of breastfeeding support for (1) healthy women and (2) women with long-term conditions using Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group methods. Mixed-methods systematic reviews synthesised process evaluations of effective breastfeeding support interventions for healthy women and experiences of receiving/providing support for breastfeeding women with long-term conditions. Cross-study synthesis integrated qualitative and quantitative findings. Systematic reviews synthesised evidence on the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. All searches were conducted from May 2021 to October 2022. Stakeholder engagement and toolkit development comprised online discussions, a modified Delphi study, focus groups and four workshops. Participants were 23 stakeholders, 16 parents in the parents\' panels, 15 women in the focus groups and 87 stakeholders who attended the workshops.
UNASSIGNED: We found considerably more interventions designed for healthy women (review 1) than aimed at women with long-term conditions (reviews 1 and 4); approximately half of the studies were targeted at groups at higher risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes, and the impact of support may be different in these populations. Despite this, studies from review 2 found that women perceived the provision of support as positive, important and needed. Studies from review 5 echoed a range of suggestions from participants regarding potential strategies to improve breastfeeding support, with the most widely reported being the need to acknowledge the role and influence of other sources of support (e.g. partners, family, friends, peers, external professionals, web-based resources) and involving these sources in the provision of breastfeeding support for women with long-term conditions. In reviews 3 and 6, there was uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding support interventions due to the limited number of studies and lack of good-quality evidence.
UNASSIGNED: There was a lack of evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breastfeeding interventions in the UK. There was often insufficient information reported about intervention characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: \'Breastfeeding only\' support probably reduces the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding. The evidence for \'breastfeeding plus\' interventions is less consistent, but these may reduce the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and at 6 months. We found no evidence of differential intervention effects regarding mode of provision or provider. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain due to the lack of good-quality evidence. Key enablers of successful implementation were responsiveness and tailoring of interventions to both women\'s and supporters\' needs. Breastfeeding support as delivered in the included studies probably has little to no effect on breastfeeding outcomes for women with long-term conditions. The mixed-methods synthesis and stakeholder work identified that existing interventions may not address the complex needs of these women. The main study output is a co-produced toolkit to guide implementation and evaluation of breastfeeding support services in the UK.
UNASSIGNED: Evaluation of breastfeeding support for all women, particularly those at risk of poor breastfeeding outcomes (e.g. long-term conditions, deprivation). This could involve tailoring the toolkit to local contexts via implementation and effectiveness studies or using quality improvement studies.
UNASSIGNED: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022337239, CRD42021229769 and CRD42022374509. The reviews of economic evidence were not registered; however, the review protocol can be accessed via the repository held by Queen\'s University Belfast Research Portal (https://pure.qub.ac.uk/).
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130995) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
We know that breastfeeding is good for the health of mothers and babies, yet many mothers experience difficulties and stop breastfeeding before they want to. This is noticeable among women living in disadvantaged areas where there are low rates of breastfeeding. Good support may help women overcome difficulties so that they can continue to breastfeed. Women with chronic illnesses such as diabetes and depression face additional challenges in breastfeeding. We wanted to understand how to improve breastfeeding support for UK women. We brought together previous scientific studies to learn about what works. We also spoke with parents and service providers. We combined all our findings into a toolkit to help the NHS improve breastfeeding support for women. We found that, for healthy women, some forms of breastfeeding support can probably help reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding and help them breastfeed exclusively. For women with chronic illnesses, we found that the types of support used in the studies probably did not help women to breastfeed. Most of the evidence did not come from the UK. We identified barriers to providing breastfeeding support for all women, especially those who are disadvantaged. We identified strategies that could help the NHS overcome these barriers. There was a lack of evidence on how cost-effective these interventions are compared with usual care, but parents and providers saw the value of paying for breastfeeding support. Giving women targeted breastfeeding support will help them to breastfeed; however, we need to test if this support works in the NHS. We also need to develop additional services for women with chronic illnesses. The NHS could use our findings to improve support for all breastfeeding women by identifying specific barriers and using evidence-based strategies to overcome them.

Leveraging governance structures: Shaping Power Relations and Decision-Making Processes within Organizations. While traditional governance approaches tend to favor hierarchical structures with concentrated authority, the growing demand for increased stakeholder engagement and empowerment has spurred the emergence of innovative governance models. This article examines traditional and evolving governance approaches in major United States professional sports leagues-the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), and National Hockey League (NHL). Through a review of literature and governance documents, the traditional hierarchal models of the NFL and MLB are analyzed. Their incremental shifts toward more inclusive structures are also explored. In contrast, the NBA\'s adoption of a franchise model with decentralized authority and the NHL\'s establishment of a Players\' Association are examined as examples of governance innovation. The impacts of these evolving approaches are considered in the context of league operations, labor relations, and overall stakeholder interest representation. This paper shows insights into the dynamics of governance change and the factors influencing shifts toward more collaborative and empowering structures within professional sports organizations.

To enhance stakeholder engagement and foster the inclusion of interests of citizens in radiation protection research, a comprehensive online survey was developed within the framework of the European Partnership PIANOFORTE. This survey was performed in 2022 and presented an opportunity for a wide range of stakeholders to voice their opinions on research priorities in radiation protection for the foreseeable future. Simultaneously, it delved into pertinent issues surrounding general radiation protection. The PIANOFORTE e-survey was conducted in the English language, accommodating a diverse range of participants. Overall, 440 respondents provided their insights and feedback, representing a broad geographical reach encompassing 29 European countries, as well as Canada, China, Colombia, India, and the United States. To assess the outcomes, the Positive Matrix Factorization numerical model was applied, in addition to qualitative and quantitative assessment of individual responses, enabling the discernment of four distinct stakeholder groups with varying attitudes. While the questionnaire may not fully represent all stakeholders due to the limited respondent pool, it is noteworthy that approximately 70% of the participants were newcomers to comparable surveys, demonstrating a proactive attitude, a strong willingness to collaborate and the necessity to continuously engage with stakeholder groups. Among the individual respondents, distinct opinions emerged particularly regarding health effects of radiation exposure, medical use of radiation, radiation protection of workers and the public, as well as emergency and recovery preparedness and response. In cluster analysis, none of the identified groups had clear preferences concerning the prioritization of future radiation protection research topics.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to engage key stakeholders in a health research priority-setting process to identify, prioritize and produce a community-driven list of research questions addressing intersectional issues on mental health and addictions (MHA) in acquired brain injury (ABI).
METHODS: A multiphasic health research priority-setting process was co-designed and executed with community-based stakeholders, including researchers, health professionals, clinicians, service providers, representatives from brain injury associations, policy makers and people with lived experience of ABI and MHA, including patients and their family members. Stakeholders\' ideas led to the generation of research questions, which were prioritized at a 1-day workshop.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine stakeholders participated in the priority-setting activity during the workshop, which resulted in a rank-ordered list of the top 10 questions for research addressing the intersections of ABI and MHA. Questions identified touched on several pressing issues (e.g., opioid crisis, homelessness), encompassed multiple subtypes of ABI (e.g., hypoxic-ischaemic, mild traumatic), and involved different domains (e.g., identification, intervention) of health research.
CONCLUSIONS: This community-driven health research priority-setting study identified and prioritized research questions addressing the intersections of ABI and MHA. Researchers and funding agencies should use this list to inform their agendas and address stakeholders\' most urgent needs, fostering meaningful improvements to clinical services.
UNASSIGNED: An 11-person working group comprised of people with lived experience, service providers, researchers, healthcare professionals and other key stakeholders collaboratively developed and informed the scope, design, methodology and interpretation of this study. Over 50 community-based stakeholders contributed to the research priority-setting activity. One co-author is a person with lived experience.

UNASSIGNED: Wearable robotic devices are currently being developed to improve upper limb function for individuals with hemiparesis after stroke. Incorporating the views of clinicians during the development of new technologies can help ensure that end products meet clinical needs and can be adopted for patient care.
UNASSIGNED: In this cross-sectional mixed-methods study, an anonymous online survey was used to gather clinicians\' perceptions of a wearable robotic hand orthosis for post-stroke hemiparesis. Participants were asked about their clinical experience and provided feedback on the prototype device after viewing a video.
UNASSIGNED: 154 participants completed the survey. Only 18.8% had previous experience with robotic technology. The majority of participants (64.9%) reported that they would use the device for both rehabilitative and assistive purposes. Participants perceived that the device could be used in supervised clinical settings with all phases of stroke. Participants also indicated a need for insurance coverage and quick setup time.
UNASSIGNED: Engaging clinicians early in the design process can help guide the development of wearable robotic devices. Both rehabilitative and assistive functions are valued by clinicians and should be considered during device development. Future research is needed to understand a broader set of stakeholders\' perspectives on utility and design.
Clinicians valued both assistive and rehabilitative uses of a wearable robotic hand orthosis designed for individuals with hemiparesis after stroke.Wearable robotic hand devices should have the capacity to engage in functional, real-world activities for both assistive and rehabilitative purposes.Pragmatic factors, such as set-up and training time, must be balanced with device complexity to enable implementation in clinical settings.Stakeholders, such as clinicians, play an important role in identifying design priorities for wearable robotic devices to ensure these devices can meet the needs of end-users.

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation of evidence-based practices depends on contextual factors like stakeholder engagement, the socio-political environment, resource availability, and stakeholders\' felt needs and preferences. Nevertheless, inequities in implementation exist and undermine efforts to address HIV in marginalized key populations. Implementation science shows promise in addressing such inequities in the HIV response, but can be limited without meaningful engagement from citizens or communities.
CONCLUSIONS: We define the concept of a citizen-engaged HIV implementation science as one that involves citizens and communities deeply in HIV implementation science activities. In this commentary, we discuss how citizen science approaches can be leveraged to spur equity in HIV implementation science. Drawing on three areas previously defined by Geng and colleagues that serve to drive impactful implementation science in the HIV response, we discuss how citizens can be engaged when considering \"whose perspectives?\", \"what questions are being asked?\" and \"how are questions asked?\". With respect to \"whose perspectives?\" a citizen-engaged HIV implementation science would leverage participatory methods and tools, such as co-creation, co-production and crowdsourcing approaches, to engage the public in identifying challenges, solve health problems and implement solutions. In terms of \"what questions are being asked?\", we discuss how efforts are being made to synthesize citizen or community-led approaches with existing implementation science frameworks and approaches. This also means that we ensure communities have a say in interrogating and deconstructing such frameworks and adapting them to local contexts through participatory approaches. Finally, when considering \"how are questions asked?\", we argue for the development and adoption of broad, guiding principles and frameworks that account for dynamic contexts to promote citizen-engaged research in HIV implementation science. This also means avoiding narrow definitions that limit the creativity, innovation and ground-up wisdom of local citizens.
CONCLUSIONS: By involving communities and citizens in the development and growth of HIV implementation science, we can ensure that our implementation approaches remain equitable and committed to bridging divides and ending AIDS as a public health threat. Ultimately, efforts should be made to foster a citizen- and community-engaged HIV implementation science to spur equity in our global HIV response.