ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2016
Exploring the challenge of health research priority setting in partnership: reflections on the methodology used by the James Lind Alliance Pressure Ulcer Priority Setting Partnership.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of manipulations to pharmaceutical dosage forms used in psychotropic tapering plans.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review to identify research priority setting in Black and minority ethnic health and evaluate their processes.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Pooled it
- Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Pooled it
- Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Lived experience-centred word clouds may improve research uncertainty gathering in priority setting partnerships.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Trial
- Research priorities for intensive care: A stakeholder-informed priority-setting partnership.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Setting research priorities for palliative and end-of-life care: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership Refresh.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Identifying local priorities for research with linked routine data: an online workshop method.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- Reducing health inequalities in the deaf community: a priority setting exercise.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Engaging longitudinal cohort participants in a research priority setting process for the Raine Study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Exploring Health Research Priority Setting in a South African Province: A Nominal Group Technique Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Overarching Priorities for Health and Care Research in the United Kingdom: A Coproduced Synthesis of James Lind Alliance 'Top 10s'.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- How do we best engage young people in decision-making about their health? A scoping review of deliberative priority setting methods.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- What works in engaging communities? Prioritising nutrition interventions in Burkina Faso, Ghana and South Africa.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Research priorities for homecare for older people: A UK multi-stakeholder consultation.Health & social care in the community · 2022Article
- Developing an obesity research agenda with British Pakistani women living in deprived areas with involvement from multisectoral stakeholders: Research priority setting with a seldom heard group.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Establishing a multistakeholder research agenda: lessons learned from a James Lind Alliance Partnership.BMJ open · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
plain english summaryThe James Lind Alliance (JLA) brings patients, carers and clinicians together in Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to identify and prioritise shared uncertainties about the effects of treatment. The JLA emerged from the evidence-informed healthcare movement to address a concern that the research being carried out on treatment effectiveness is not that of most importance to patients and health professionals. In the JLA PSPs, 'hard' evidence-informed ideals meet 'soft' participatory practices. This article explores the challenges of putting co-production methods into practice by reflecting on the methods used by the JLA Pressure Ulcer PSP (JLAPUP). The JLA principles are transparency, inclusivity and avoiding waste in research. This means paying the same close critical attention to how PSPs are designed and run, as is desired in the health research which the JLA seeks to influence. JLAPUP showed that it was possible to work in partnership in a field where patients are often elderly, immobile, unrepresented and particularly unwell, many of whom are living with more than one long term condition. However, for those unfamiliar with it, 'uncertainty' was a difficult term to get to grips with. Also, it was harder for some people than others to take part and to have their voices heard and understood. In keeping with other PSPs, JLAPUP found that the nature and quality of research into pressure ulcer prevention and treatment did not reflect the priorities of those who took part. ABSTRACT: ᅟ.
backgroundStudies identifying a mismatch between the priorities of academics and clinicians and those of people with direct experience of a health condition pose a challenge to the assumption that professional researchers can represent the interests of patients and the public in setting priorities for health research. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) brings patients, carers and clinicians together in Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to identify and prioritise shared uncertainties about the effects of treatment. There is no formal evaluation yet to examine the different approaches used by individual PSPs and the impact these methods have on the quality of the partnership and subsequent outputs. There is no gold standard method for health research topic identification and priority setting and reporting on public involvement in this area is predominantly descriptive rather than evaluative. METHODS AND
findingsThe JLA Pressure Ulcer PSP (JLAPUP) was developed and worked between 2009 and 2013 to identify and prioritise the top 10 'uncertainties'
conclusionEngaging people with very different health and life experiences in the complexities of health science based discussions of uncertainty is challenging. This is particularly the case when engaging groups routinely excluded from participating in health research, for example, older people with multiple comorbidities. The JLA principles of transparency, inclusivity and avoiding waste in research require paying close critical attention to PSP methodology, including full evaluation and reporting of PSP processes and outcomes. Assessing the impact of PSPs is contingent on the decision making processes of commissioners and funders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.