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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |