ArticleBMJ open2019
Joint production of research priorities to improve the lives of those with childhood onset conditions that impair learning: the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership for 'learning difficulties'.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Profiles are Better Predictors of Literacy Attainment Than Diagnostic Outcomes in Children with High ADHD Symptoms.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- What Are the Research Priorities for the Dyslexia Community in the United Kingdom and How Do They Align With Previous Research Funding?Dyslexia (Chichester, England) · 2025Article
- Learning from the community: iterative co-production of a programme to support the development of attention, regulation and thinking skills in toddlers at elevated likelihood of autism or ADHD.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Camouflaging in neurodivergent and neurotypical girls at the transition to adolescence and its relationship to mental health: A participatory methods research study.JCPP advances · 2024Article
- The academic impact of paediatric research agendas: a descriptive analysis.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Identifying research priorities with children, youth, and families: A scoping review.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2024Article
- Co-production of the 'EPIC' multidimensional tool-kit to support neurodivergent children and young people at home and school: a feasibility and pilot study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- What matters to you? Engaging with children in the James Lind Alliance Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- What interventions should we implement in England's mental health services? The mental health implementation network (MHIN) mixed-methods approach to rapid prioritisation.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
- Involving children and young people in paediatric research priority setting: a narrative review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Review
- Article
- Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo engage children and young people with conditions that impair learning, their parents/carers and the health, education, social work and third sector professionals to identify and prioritise research questions for learning difficulties.
designProspective surveys and consensus meeting guided by methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.
settingScotland.
methodsThe Priority Setting Partnership came together through discussion and collaboration between the University of Edinburgh, Scottish charity The Salvesen Mindroom Centre and partners in the National Health Service, education services and the third sector. A steering group was established. Charity and professional organisations were recruited. Suggested questions were gathered in an open survey and from research recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Guidance. Suggested questions and recommendations were summarised into 40 indicative research questions. These indicative questions were verified as uncertainties from research evidence. Respondents each nominated up to 10 questions as research priorities in an interim survey. The 25 highest-ranked questions from the interim survey were prioritised at the final priority setting workshop.
participants367 people submitted suggestions (29 individuals affected by learning difficulties, 147 parents/carers and 191 professionals). 361 people participated in the interim prioritisation (41 individuals, 125 parents/carers and 195 professionals). 25 took part in the final workshop (5 young people, 6 parents and 14 professionals).
resultsTop three research priorities related to (1) upskilling education professionals, (2) best education and community environment and (3) multidisciplinary practice and working with parents. Top 10 included best early interventions, upskilling health, social and third sector professionals, support for families, identifying early signs and symptoms, effective assessments and strategies against stigma and bullying and to live independent lives.
conclusionsResults will now be a resource for researchers and funders to understand and resolve learning difficulties and improve the lives of those affected with childhood onset conditions that result in learning difficulties.
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.