Cargando…

The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review

OBJECTIVE: To 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. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: The Embase, Medline (Ovid), P...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nygaard, Agnete, Halvorsrud, Liv, Linnerud, Siv, Grov, Ellen Karine, Bergland, Astrid
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6720333/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31473612
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027473
_version_ 1783448101657247744
author Nygaard, Agnete
Halvorsrud, Liv
Linnerud, Siv
Grov, Ellen Karine
Bergland, Astrid
author_facet Nygaard, Agnete
Halvorsrud, Liv
Linnerud, Siv
Grov, Ellen Karine
Bergland, Astrid
author_sort Nygaard, Agnete
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To 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. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: The Embase, Medline (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library as of October 2018. STUDY SELECTION: All 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 EXTRACTION: A 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. RESULTS: Database 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. CONCLUSIONS: JLA-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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6720333
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67203332019-09-17 The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review Nygaard, Agnete Halvorsrud, Liv Linnerud, Siv Grov, Ellen Karine Bergland, Astrid BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVE: To 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. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: The Embase, Medline (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library as of October 2018. STUDY SELECTION: All 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 EXTRACTION: A 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. RESULTS: Database 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. CONCLUSIONS: JLA-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. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6720333/ /pubmed/31473612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027473 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Nygaard, Agnete
Halvorsrud, Liv
Linnerud, Siv
Grov, Ellen Karine
Bergland, Astrid
The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review
title The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review
title_full The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review
title_fullStr The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review
title_full_unstemmed The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review
title_short The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review
title_sort james lind alliance process approach: scoping review
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6720333/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31473612
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027473
work_keys_str_mv AT nygaardagnete thejameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview
AT halvorsrudliv thejameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview
AT linnerudsiv thejameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview
AT grovellenkarine thejameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview
AT berglandastrid thejameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview
AT nygaardagnete jameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview
AT halvorsrudliv jameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview
AT linnerudsiv jameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview
AT grovellenkarine jameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview
AT berglandastrid jameslindallianceprocessapproachscopingreview