Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review

Leonard Ho; Katherine Lloyd; Martin Taylor-rowan; Shoba Dawson; Monica Logan; Stephanie Leitch; Terence J Quinn; Susan Deborah Shenkin; Steve W Parry; Heather Jarman; Emily J  Henderson

doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2023.09.003

Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review

Leonard Ho^*, Katherine Lloyd, Martin Taylor-rowan, Shoba Dawson, Monica Logan, Stephanie Leitch, Terence J Quinn, Susan Deborah Shenkin, Steve W Parry, Heather Jarman, Emily J Henderson

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract / Description of output

Objectives: Priority setting partnerships (PSPs) attempt to shape the research agenda to address the needs of local populations of interest. We reviewed the PSPs for older adults, with a focus on exemplar health care systems: United Kingdom (UK; publicly funded), United States (private health insurance-based), South Korea (national health insurance-based), and Africa (out-of-pocket).

Design: Systematic review.

Setting and participants: We searched databases and sources (January 2011-October 202l; updated in February 2023) for PSPs of older adults' health care.

Methods: Based on the British geriatric medicine curriculum, we extracted and categorized the PSP topics by areas and the research priorities by themes, and generated evidence maps depicting and comparing the research gaps across the systems. We evaluated PSP quality using the Nine Common Themes of Good Clinical Practice.

Results: We included 32 PSPs (United Kingdom: n = 25; United States: n = 7; South Korea and Africa: n = 0) and identified priorities regarding 27 conditions or service arrangements in the United Kingdom and 9 in the United States (predominantly in neurology/psychiatry). The UK priorities focused on treatments and interventions whereas the US on prognostic/predictive factors. There were notable research gaps within the existing PSPs, including common geriatric conditions like continence and frailty. The PSP quality evaluation revealed issues around lacking inclusion of ethnic minorities.

Conclusions and implications: Research priorities for older adult health care vary internationally, but certain health care systems/countries have no available PSPs. Where PSPs are available, fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine have not been included. Future researchers should conduct prioritizations in different countries, focus on core geriatric syndromes, and ensure the inclusion of all relevant stakeholder groups.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1726-1745
Number of pages	20
Journal	Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Volume	24
Issue number	11
Early online date	14 Oct 2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2023.09.003
Publication status	Published - Nov 2023

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Older adults
priority
health care

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jamda.2023.09.003Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND)

Comparing Research Priority_HO_DOA04092023_VOR_CC-BY-NC-NDFinal published version, 694 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861023007892Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND)

Cite this

Ho, L., Lloyd, K., Taylor-rowan, M., Dawson, S., Logan, M., Leitch, S., Quinn, T. J., Shenkin, S. D., Parry, S. W., Jarman, H., & Henderson, E. J. (2023). Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 24(11), 1726-1745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2023.09.003

@article{ec3941f63c334d0aaf248f5b8f1f082a,

title = "Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review",

abstract = "Objectives: Priority setting partnerships (PSPs) attempt to shape the research agenda to address the needs of local populations of interest. We reviewed the PSPs for older adults, with a focus on exemplar health care systems: United Kingdom (UK; publicly funded), United States (private health insurance-based), South Korea (national health insurance-based), and Africa (out-of-pocket).Design: Systematic review.Setting and participants: We searched databases and sources (January 2011-October 202l; updated in February 2023) for PSPs of older adults' health care.Methods: Based on the British geriatric medicine curriculum, we extracted and categorized the PSP topics by areas and the research priorities by themes, and generated evidence maps depicting and comparing the research gaps across the systems. We evaluated PSP quality using the Nine Common Themes of Good Clinical Practice.Results: We included 32 PSPs (United Kingdom: n = 25; United States: n = 7; South Korea and Africa: n = 0) and identified priorities regarding 27 conditions or service arrangements in the United Kingdom and 9 in the United States (predominantly in neurology/psychiatry). The UK priorities focused on treatments and interventions whereas the US on prognostic/predictive factors. There were notable research gaps within the existing PSPs, including common geriatric conditions like continence and frailty. The PSP quality evaluation revealed issues around lacking inclusion of ethnic minorities.Conclusions and implications: Research priorities for older adult health care vary internationally, but certain health care systems/countries have no available PSPs. Where PSPs are available, fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine have not been included. Future researchers should conduct prioritizations in different countries, focus on core geriatric syndromes, and ensure the inclusion of all relevant stakeholder groups.",

keywords = "Older adults, priority, health care",

author = "Leonard Ho and Katherine Lloyd and Martin Taylor-rowan and Shoba Dawson and Monica Logan and Stephanie Leitch and Quinn, {Terence J} and Shenkin, {Susan Deborah} and Parry, {Steve W} and Heather Jarman and Henderson, {Emily J}",

note = "Funding Information: Characteristics of the 32 included studies are summarized in Table 1 . Among them, 25 were carried out in the United Kingdom, 7 in the United States, and none in South Korea or Africa. Nineteen UK PSPs were inclusive of participants across the whole of the country. The other 6 PSPs were region-specific. 16 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 26 , 41 Most studies (n = 20) employed the JLA or modified JLA approach to identify priorities. Of the remaining studies, 3 used a nominal group technique 16 , 23 , 41 and 2 used a Delphi approach. 25 , 34 All 7 US PSPs were inclusive of participants across the whole of the country. Most studies (n = 4) were facilitated by the GEAR (Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research) Network, 46 concerning the caring of older adults in emergency care settings, and adopted the CITRA approach for their priority setting exercise. 17 , 28 , 36 , 44 The remaining 3 either used a nominal group technique (n = 2), 29 , 37 or the modified JLA approach (n = 1). 45 Of the 22 UK PSPs reporting their source(s) of funding, all were financially supported by British government funders (eg, National Institute for Health and Care Research), professional bodies (eg, British Orthopaedic Association), registered charities (eg, Parkinson's UK), charitable foundations (eg, Wellcome Trust), and/or universities. The 7 US PSPs were funded by the US National Institutes of Health, private philanthropies (eg, John A. Hartford Foundation), professional bodies (eg, Association of Specialty Professors), and/or universities. None of the included PSPs reported the involvement of pharmaceutical companies in any research activities. Funding Information: Funding: This work was supported by the British Geriatrics Society (BGS) and the Scottish Funding Council's Brain Health Alliance for Research Challenge. The funding awarded by the BGS included the salary costs for M.T.-R. and S.D. We would also like to thank Legal and General PLC for providing a research grant to establish the independent Advanced Care Research Centre at the University of Edinburgh as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility program. The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the above funding bodies. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors",

year = "2023",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1016/j.jamda.2023.09.003",

language = "English",

volume = "24",

pages = "1726--1745",

journal = "Journal of the American Medical Directors Association",

issn = "1525-8610",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "11",

}

Ho, L, Lloyd, K, Taylor-rowan, M, Dawson, S, Logan, M, Leitch, S, Quinn, TJ, Shenkin, SD, Parry, SW, Jarman, H & Henderson, EJ 2023, 'Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review', Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1726-1745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2023.09.003

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Ho, Leonard

AU - Lloyd, Katherine

AU - Taylor-rowan, Martin

AU - Dawson, Shoba

AU - Logan, Monica

AU - Leitch, Stephanie

AU - Quinn, Terence J

AU - Shenkin, Susan Deborah

AU - Parry, Steve W

AU - Jarman, Heather

AU - Henderson, Emily J

N1 - Funding Information: Characteristics of the 32 included studies are summarized in Table 1 . Among them, 25 were carried out in the United Kingdom, 7 in the United States, and none in South Korea or Africa. Nineteen UK PSPs were inclusive of participants across the whole of the country. The other 6 PSPs were region-specific. 16 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 26 , 41 Most studies (n = 20) employed the JLA or modified JLA approach to identify priorities. Of the remaining studies, 3 used a nominal group technique 16 , 23 , 41 and 2 used a Delphi approach. 25 , 34 All 7 US PSPs were inclusive of participants across the whole of the country. Most studies (n = 4) were facilitated by the GEAR (Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research) Network, 46 concerning the caring of older adults in emergency care settings, and adopted the CITRA approach for their priority setting exercise. 17 , 28 , 36 , 44 The remaining 3 either used a nominal group technique (n = 2), 29 , 37 or the modified JLA approach (n = 1). 45 Of the 22 UK PSPs reporting their source(s) of funding, all were financially supported by British government funders (eg, National Institute for Health and Care Research), professional bodies (eg, British Orthopaedic Association), registered charities (eg, Parkinson's UK), charitable foundations (eg, Wellcome Trust), and/or universities. The 7 US PSPs were funded by the US National Institutes of Health, private philanthropies (eg, John A. Hartford Foundation), professional bodies (eg, Association of Specialty Professors), and/or universities. None of the included PSPs reported the involvement of pharmaceutical companies in any research activities. Funding Information: Funding: This work was supported by the British Geriatrics Society (BGS) and the Scottish Funding Council's Brain Health Alliance for Research Challenge. The funding awarded by the BGS included the salary costs for M.T.-R. and S.D. We would also like to thank Legal and General PLC for providing a research grant to establish the independent Advanced Care Research Centre at the University of Edinburgh as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility program. The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the above funding bodies. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors

PY - 2023/11

Y1 - 2023/11

N2 - Objectives: Priority setting partnerships (PSPs) attempt to shape the research agenda to address the needs of local populations of interest. We reviewed the PSPs for older adults, with a focus on exemplar health care systems: United Kingdom (UK; publicly funded), United States (private health insurance-based), South Korea (national health insurance-based), and Africa (out-of-pocket).Design: Systematic review.Setting and participants: We searched databases and sources (January 2011-October 202l; updated in February 2023) for PSPs of older adults' health care.Methods: Based on the British geriatric medicine curriculum, we extracted and categorized the PSP topics by areas and the research priorities by themes, and generated evidence maps depicting and comparing the research gaps across the systems. We evaluated PSP quality using the Nine Common Themes of Good Clinical Practice.Results: We included 32 PSPs (United Kingdom: n = 25; United States: n = 7; South Korea and Africa: n = 0) and identified priorities regarding 27 conditions or service arrangements in the United Kingdom and 9 in the United States (predominantly in neurology/psychiatry). The UK priorities focused on treatments and interventions whereas the US on prognostic/predictive factors. There were notable research gaps within the existing PSPs, including common geriatric conditions like continence and frailty. The PSP quality evaluation revealed issues around lacking inclusion of ethnic minorities.Conclusions and implications: Research priorities for older adult health care vary internationally, but certain health care systems/countries have no available PSPs. Where PSPs are available, fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine have not been included. Future researchers should conduct prioritizations in different countries, focus on core geriatric syndromes, and ensure the inclusion of all relevant stakeholder groups.

AB - Objectives: Priority setting partnerships (PSPs) attempt to shape the research agenda to address the needs of local populations of interest. We reviewed the PSPs for older adults, with a focus on exemplar health care systems: United Kingdom (UK; publicly funded), United States (private health insurance-based), South Korea (national health insurance-based), and Africa (out-of-pocket).Design: Systematic review.Setting and participants: We searched databases and sources (January 2011-October 202l; updated in February 2023) for PSPs of older adults' health care.Methods: Based on the British geriatric medicine curriculum, we extracted and categorized the PSP topics by areas and the research priorities by themes, and generated evidence maps depicting and comparing the research gaps across the systems. We evaluated PSP quality using the Nine Common Themes of Good Clinical Practice.Results: We included 32 PSPs (United Kingdom: n = 25; United States: n = 7; South Korea and Africa: n = 0) and identified priorities regarding 27 conditions or service arrangements in the United Kingdom and 9 in the United States (predominantly in neurology/psychiatry). The UK priorities focused on treatments and interventions whereas the US on prognostic/predictive factors. There were notable research gaps within the existing PSPs, including common geriatric conditions like continence and frailty. The PSP quality evaluation revealed issues around lacking inclusion of ethnic minorities.Conclusions and implications: Research priorities for older adult health care vary internationally, but certain health care systems/countries have no available PSPs. Where PSPs are available, fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine have not been included. Future researchers should conduct prioritizations in different countries, focus on core geriatric syndromes, and ensure the inclusion of all relevant stakeholder groups.

KW - Older adults

KW - priority

KW - health care

U2 - 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.09.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.09.003

M3 - Article

SN - 1525-8610

VL - 24

SP - 1726

EP - 1745

JO - Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

JF - Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

IS - 11

ER -

Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review

Abstract / Description of output

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this