Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions

Allison M. Bourne, Renea V. Johnston, Sheila Cyril, Andrew M. Briggs, Ornella Clavisi, Gustavo Duque, Ian A. Harris, Catherine Hill, Claire Hiller, Steven J. Kamper, Jane Latimer, Andrew Lawson, Chung Wei Christine Lin, Christopher Maher, Diana Perriman, Bethan L. Richards, Peter Smitham, William John Taylor, Sam Whittle, Rachelle Buchbinder

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified. Design Scoping review. Setting and population Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included. Methods and analysis We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted. Results Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities. Conclusions While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017059250.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere023962
JournalBMJ Open
Volume8
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2018

Keywords

  • musculoskeletal disorders
  • rheumatology
  • scoping review

Cite this

Bourne, Allison M. ; Johnston, Renea V. ; Cyril, Sheila ; Briggs, Andrew M. ; Clavisi, Ornella ; Duque, Gustavo ; Harris, Ian A. ; Hill, Catherine ; Hiller, Claire ; Kamper, Steven J. ; Latimer, Jane ; Lawson, Andrew ; Lin, Chung Wei Christine ; Maher, Christopher ; Perriman, Diana ; Richards, Bethan L. ; Smitham, Peter ; Taylor, William John ; Whittle, Sam ; Buchbinder, Rachelle. / Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions. In: BMJ Open. 2018 ; Vol. 8, No. 12.
@article{1f33ddc34efd486fb7f598ad5133077a,
title = "Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions",
abstract = "Objective Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified. Design Scoping review. Setting and population Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included. Methods and analysis We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted. Results Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4{\%}) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24{\%}) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7{\%} broad and n=1, 0.4{\%} specific), implementation (n=6, 2{\%} broad and n=4, 1.6{\%} specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1{\%} broad and n=9, 3.7{\%} specific) priorities. Conclusions While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017059250.",
keywords = "musculoskeletal disorders, rheumatology, scoping review",
author = "Bourne, {Allison M.} and Johnston, {Renea V.} and Sheila Cyril and Briggs, {Andrew M.} and Ornella Clavisi and Gustavo Duque and Harris, {Ian A.} and Catherine Hill and Claire Hiller and Kamper, {Steven J.} and Jane Latimer and Andrew Lawson and Lin, {Chung Wei Christine} and Christopher Maher and Diana Perriman and Richards, {Bethan L.} and Peter Smitham and Taylor, {William John} and Sam Whittle and Rachelle Buchbinder",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023962",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

Bourne, AM, Johnston, RV, Cyril, S, Briggs, AM, Clavisi, O, Duque, G, Harris, IA, Hill, C, Hiller, C, Kamper, SJ, Latimer, J, Lawson, A, Lin, CWC, Maher, C, Perriman, D, Richards, BL, Smitham, P, Taylor, WJ, Whittle, S & Buchbinder, R 2018, 'Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions', BMJ Open, vol. 8, no. 12, e023962. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023962

Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions. / Bourne, Allison M.; Johnston, Renea V.; Cyril, Sheila; Briggs, Andrew M.; Clavisi, Ornella; Duque, Gustavo; Harris, Ian A.; Hill, Catherine; Hiller, Claire; Kamper, Steven J.; Latimer, Jane; Lawson, Andrew; Lin, Chung Wei Christine; Maher, Christopher; Perriman, Diana; Richards, Bethan L.; Smitham, Peter; Taylor, William John; Whittle, Sam; Buchbinder, Rachelle.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 8, No. 12, e023962, 01.12.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions

AU - Bourne, Allison M.

AU - Johnston, Renea V.

AU - Cyril, Sheila

AU - Briggs, Andrew M.

AU - Clavisi, Ornella

AU - Duque, Gustavo

AU - Harris, Ian A.

AU - Hill, Catherine

AU - Hiller, Claire

AU - Kamper, Steven J.

AU - Latimer, Jane

AU - Lawson, Andrew

AU - Lin, Chung Wei Christine

AU - Maher, Christopher

AU - Perriman, Diana

AU - Richards, Bethan L.

AU - Smitham, Peter

AU - Taylor, William John

AU - Whittle, Sam

AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle

PY - 2018/12/1

Y1 - 2018/12/1

N2 - Objective Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified. Design Scoping review. Setting and population Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included. Methods and analysis We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted. Results Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities. Conclusions While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017059250.

AB - Objective Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified. Design Scoping review. Setting and population Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included. Methods and analysis We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted. Results Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities. Conclusions While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017059250.

KW - musculoskeletal disorders

KW - rheumatology

KW - scoping review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058749164&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023962

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023962

M3 - Review Article

VL - 8

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 12

M1 - e023962

ER -