Alexander O'Connor, Sam Alexandra Rose, Emma V. Carrington, Anna Clements, Julie A. Cornish, Marcus J. Drake, Louise J. Dunford, Jennie Grainger, Douglas Hallett, Kate Lough, Tatenda Marunda, Aziza Sesay, Dipesh H. Vasant, Tara Willson, Thomas Dudding
{"title":"Research priorities for faecal incontinence in adults: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership","authors":"Alexander O'Connor, Sam Alexandra Rose, Emma V. Carrington, Anna Clements, Julie A. Cornish, Marcus J. Drake, Louise J. Dunford, Jennie Grainger, Douglas Hallett, Kate Lough, Tatenda Marunda, Aziza Sesay, Dipesh H. Vasant, Tara Willson, Thomas Dudding","doi":"10.1111/codi.70154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Faecal incontinence (FI) is common, yet clinical guidelines rely on low-quality evidence or expert opinion. A high proportion of research is focused on areas that may not be considered a priority by patients or clinicians. This project aimed to identify the top 10 research priorities for FI in adults in equal collaboration with patients, carers and healthcare professionals in a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership (PSP).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This PSP followed established methodology supported by a multidisciplinary steering group including those with lived experience of FI. Evidence uncertainties were gathered through a survey with free-text responses, summarised in indicative summary questions and prioritised in a second survey. An independently facilitated priority setting workshop used a nominal group technique to reach consensus on the order of research priorities, with a focus on the top 10. At all stages the views of healthcare professionals and individuals with a lived experience of FI were considered equally.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>After the initial survey, 512 respondents submitted 991 evidence uncertainties. These produced 54 indicative summary questions. In the second survey, 373 respondents generated a shortlist of 26 questions. Finally, the top 10 research priorities were determined by consensus at a face-to-face workshop and include unanswered questions concerning prevention, investigation, education, self-management and treatment of FI.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This PSP has identified a comprehensive list of top research priorities, including items of importance to both healthcare professionals and individuals with a lived experience of FI. Researchers and funders should use these priorities to inform future work.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10512,"journal":{"name":"Colorectal Disease","volume":"27 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/codi.70154","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Colorectal Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/codi.70154","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim
Faecal incontinence (FI) is common, yet clinical guidelines rely on low-quality evidence or expert opinion. A high proportion of research is focused on areas that may not be considered a priority by patients or clinicians. This project aimed to identify the top 10 research priorities for FI in adults in equal collaboration with patients, carers and healthcare professionals in a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership (PSP).
Methods
This PSP followed established methodology supported by a multidisciplinary steering group including those with lived experience of FI. Evidence uncertainties were gathered through a survey with free-text responses, summarised in indicative summary questions and prioritised in a second survey. An independently facilitated priority setting workshop used a nominal group technique to reach consensus on the order of research priorities, with a focus on the top 10. At all stages the views of healthcare professionals and individuals with a lived experience of FI were considered equally.
Results
After the initial survey, 512 respondents submitted 991 evidence uncertainties. These produced 54 indicative summary questions. In the second survey, 373 respondents generated a shortlist of 26 questions. Finally, the top 10 research priorities were determined by consensus at a face-to-face workshop and include unanswered questions concerning prevention, investigation, education, self-management and treatment of FI.
Conclusion
This PSP has identified a comprehensive list of top research priorities, including items of importance to both healthcare professionals and individuals with a lived experience of FI. Researchers and funders should use these priorities to inform future work.
期刊介绍:
Diseases of the colon and rectum are common and offer a number of exciting challenges. Clinical, diagnostic and basic science research is expanding rapidly. There is increasing demand from purchasers of health care and patients for clinicians to keep abreast of the latest research and developments, and to translate these into routine practice. Technological advances in diagnosis, surgical technique, new pharmaceuticals, molecular genetics and other basic sciences have transformed many aspects of how these diseases are managed. Such progress will accelerate.
Colorectal Disease offers a real benefit to subscribers and authors. It is first and foremost a vehicle for publishing original research relating to the demanding, rapidly expanding field of colorectal diseases.
Essential for surgeons, pathologists, oncologists, gastroenterologists and health professionals caring for patients with a disease of the lower GI tract, Colorectal Disease furthers education and inter-professional development by including regular review articles and discussions of current controversies.
Note that the journal does not usually accept paediatric surgical papers.