Establishing and prioritizing research questions for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of hair loss (excluding alopecia areata): the Hair Loss Priority Setting Partnership

Macbeth, A. E.; Tomlinson, J.; Messenger, A.G.; Moore-Millar, Karena; Michaelides, C.; Shipman, A. R.; Kassim, Jahn; Brockley, Julia; Szczecińska, Weronika; Farrant, Paul; Robinson, Ray; Rodgers, Jennifer; Chambers, J.; Upadhyaya, Suneet Kumar; Harries, Matthew

doi:10.1111/bjd.15810

Cited by 6 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of studies using this process has increased annually, with 12 published in 2017. In our sample, 27 of the studies were from the UK,1 5 7 12–35 8 were from Canada,36–43 and 1 each was from India44 and Spain 45…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No studies described disagreement in the prioritisation stages. However, 24 other studies also mentioned psychosocial issues without noting who had done so 1 7 14–19 25–27 29 31–39 41–43. Ten studies did not mention psychosocial issues 5 12 20–22 24 26 28 44 45.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ten studies did not mention psychosocial issues 5 12 20–22 24 26 28 44 45. The types of health conditions that were addressed included gastrointestinal,26–28 neurological,1 5 7 16 21 38 dermatological,13 15 17 29 34 45 endocrinal14 32 42 and cancer22 25 41 43 conditions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All included studies had a steering group, although they were described differently. Nineteen studies1 5 12 14–17 19 20 22 23 25 31 36 37 39–41 45 included patients, carers and clinicians in their steering groups; 16 studies7 13 18 24 26–29 32–35 38 42–44 did not include carers in their steering group (ie, only patients and clinicians). In one study,30 the titles of the members on the steering group were not reported; in another,21 the steering group did not specifically include patients, carers or clinicians, but rather stated that representation from all stakeholders was ensured.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review

Nygaard

Halvorsrud

Linnerud³

et al. 2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo summarise study descriptions of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to the priority setting partnership (PSP) process and how this process is used to identify uncertainties and to develop lists of top 10 priorities.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesThe Embase, Medline (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library as of October 2018.Study selectionAll studies reporting the use of JLA process steps and the development of a list of top 10 priorities, with adult participants aged 18 years.Data extractionA data extraction sheet was created to collect demographic details, study aims, sample and patient group details, PSP details (eg, stakeholders), lists of top 10 priorities, descriptions of JLA facilitator roles and the PSP stages followed. Individual and comparative appraisals were discussed among the scoping review authors until agreement was reached.ResultsDatabase searches yielded 431 potentially relevant studies published in 2010–2018, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. JLA process participants were patients, carers and clinicians, aged 18 years, who had experience with the study-relevant diagnoses. All studies reported having a steering group, although partners and stakeholders were described differently across studies. The number of JLA PSP process steps varied from four to eight. Uncertainties were typically collected via an online survey hosted on, or linked to, the PSP website. The number of submitted uncertainties varied across studies, from 323 submitted by 58 participants to 8227 submitted by 2587 participants.ConclusionsJLA-based PSP makes a useful contribution to identifying research questions. Through this process, patients, carers and clinicians work together to identify and prioritise unanswered uncertainties. However, representation of those with different health conditions depends on their having the capacity and resources to participate. No studies reported difficulties in developing their top 10 priorities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review

Nygaard

Halvorsrud

Linnerud³

et al. 2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this issue of the BJD , Macbeth et al . report the results of the Hair Loss PSP (excluding alopecia areata) . Key stakeholders were identified and invited to participate in the process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%