ArticleBMJ global health2026
Patient, family and clinician priorities for critical care research in Asia and Africa: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership using modified Delphi and nominal group techniques.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying research priorities in adult intensive care in the United Kingdom: Results from a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership aimed to identify and prioritise unanswered questions important to adult patients, their families and health professionals with lived experience of critical care across Asia and Africa.
methodsModified Delphi techniques were used to generate suggestions using an online survey. Following verification, literature review and content analysis, these suggestions were iteratively codified into emergent topics. Topics were presented in a second online survey for ranking, prior to an online workshop where nominal group technique was used to identify top priority questions across stakeholder groups. Surveys were disseminated using snowballing techniques.
findingsThe project was coordinated by a representative steering group independently overseen by the JLA. The initial survey generated 432 candidacy suggestions from 17 countries. Review, content analysis and codification resulted in 51 candidacy questions, spanning 16 topics. A second shortlisting survey reached 124 clinicians and 86 patient-carer stakeholders, who ranked the most important topics and produced a shortlist of 18 candidacy topic questions. Representative stakeholders attending an online workshop prioritised the questions, with a tie for 10th and 11th place, resulting in a top 10+1 priority list. These spanned four themes: cost of care, infection and long-term recovery including psychological and socio-economic recovery following critical illness.
interpretationCost, who would benefit from intensive care unit admission and organisation of healthcare dominated discussions irrespective of disease, injury or illness. Priorities were consistent between stakeholder groups. The JLA methodology enabled contributions from those with lived experience of critical care. The results of the prioritisation partnership provide a roadmap for researchers and funders seeking to address stakeholder priorities.
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.