Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32670611›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020

What happens after James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships? A qualitative study of contexts, processes and impacts.

Kristina Staley, Sally Crowe, Joanna C Crocker, Mary Madden, Trisha Greenhalgh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Identifying Common Patient-Oriented Priorities for Child and Adolescent Health Research and Care: A Systematic Review of Priority Setting Partnerships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Consensus-based research priorities for post-collision care in the Western Cape province of South Africa.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Research priorities for faecal incontinence in adults: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. European Glaucoma Society research priorities for glaucoma care.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kristina Staley *TwoCan Associates, Ross on Wye, HR9 7DL UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7747-1634
Sally Crowe *Crowe Associates, Oxford, OX9 3LW UK.
Joanna C CrockerDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG UK.
Mary MaddenDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD UK.
Trisha GreenhalghDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG UK.
University of Oxford · GBCrowell & Moring (United States) · USTwoCan Associates (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe James Lind Alliance (JLA) supports priority setting partnerships (PSPs) in which patients, carers and health professionals collaborate to identify a Top 10 list of research priorities. Few studies have examined how partnerships plan for the post-prioritisation phase, or how context and post-PSP processes influence the fortunes of priorities. This evaluation aimed to explore these questions.

methodsWe selected a diverse sample of 20 interviewees who had knowledge of 25 PSPs. Thirteen interviewees had led a PSP, either from a university, patient organisation or charity. Three were patients who had taken part in a PSP workshop. Four others, three researchers and one funder, had worked with JLA PSP priorities to develop research proposals. We analysed the data thematically, exploring how success was understood and achieved.

resultsThe JLA PSPs had different histories, funding sources, goals and stakeholders. Whilst their focus was on generating priority research topics, PSPs' wider impacts included enhanced status and greater confidence for individuals, as well as relationship-building and network strengthening for the organisations involved. To follow through on a Top 10, additional work was needed to refine broad priority topics into research questions and match them with appropriate funding sources. Commitment to post-PSP action from partners appeared to increase the chance that priority topics would be followed through to funded studies. Academic publications could alert researchers to a PSP's outputs, but not all PSPs had the capacity to produce them. A Top 10 list potentially influences funding decisions through direct funding, themed calls or as a prompt in open calls. Influence on funders appears to depend on alignment between a priority and the funder's remit, culture and values.

conclusionThe history and context of a JLA PSP have a major influence on its impact. Our findings suggest that there is no universal formula for success, but that greater resource and attention should be given to what happens after prioritisation. Further research is needed on what works best in what circumstances. Overall, we conclude that a wider cultural change in the research world is needed for JLA PSPs to achieve their goal of shaping the research agenda.

Indexed as

James Lind AlliancePatient and public involvementPriority setting partnershipsResearch priorities

Identifiers

PMID32670611
PMCPMC7353437
OpenAlexW3041009572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.