International research priority setting exercises in stroke – systematic review

Leitch, S. L., Logan, M., Beishon, L. and Quinn, T. J. (2023) International research priority setting exercises in stroke – systematic review. International Journal of Stroke, 18(2), pp. 133-143. (doi: 10.1177/17474930221096935) (PMID:35422174)

Abstract

Background: Agreeing on priority topics for stroke research can help make best use of limited funding, people and time. Formal priority setting exercises collate stakeholder opinion to reach consensus on the most important research questions. Several stroke research priority setting exercises have been published. Exploring commonalities and differences between these exercises could bring a better understanding of priority research topics. Aim: We collated and compared published stroke research priority setting exercises across international healthcare systems. Summary of review: Multidisciplinary, electronic literature databases were searched from 2000 – 2021, using a validated search syntax. Inclusion criteria were:full paper; stroke focus (any subtype); prioritization method described; lists priorities for research. Priorities were extracted, coded and assigned to categories using thematic analysis. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice (9CTGP) and the Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) checklists were used to assess methodological and reporting quality respectively. From 623 titles assessed, fourteen studies were eligible for inclusion, including 2410 participants and describing 165 priorities. The majority of priority setting exercises were conducted in high-income countries (86%, n=12 papers), published between 2011-2021 (64%, n=9), and included views of healthcare professionals (57%, n=8), and stroke survivors (50%, n=7). Care-givers (n=3, 21%) were under-represented. The James Lind Alliance priority setting method was most commonly used (50%, n=7). Priorities were grouped in ten thematic categories. Rehabilitation and follow-up was the most common priority theme (15%, n=25 priorities), followed by psychological recovery (14%, n=23), pathology (14%, n=23) and caregivers and support (14%, n=23). Priorities differed by year and case-mix (stakeholder group and demographics) of respondents. No paper was judged high quality for all aspects of method or reporting. Common limitations were around inclusiveness and evaluation of the exercise. Conclusions: Stroke research priorities are dynamic and context specific. However, there was a common theme of prioritising research that considered the life after stroke. Future priority setting should consider inclusion of non-industrialised countries and stroke survivors with a range of impairments.

• Item Type: Articles
• Status: Published
• Refereed: Yes
• Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: Quinn, Professor Terry
• Authors: Leitch, S. L., Logan, M., Beishon, L., and Quinn, T. J.
• College/School: College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > School of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Health
• Journal Name: International Journal of Stroke
• Publisher: SAGE Publications
• ISSN: 1747-4930
• ISSN (Online): 1747-4949
• Published Online: 14 April 2022
• Copyright Holders: Copyright © 2022 World Stroke Organization
• First Published: First published in International Journal of Stroke 18(2): 133-143
• Publisher Policy: Reproduced in accordance with the publisher copyright policy