Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Type: Journal article
Title: Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions
Author: Bourne, A.M.
Johnston, R.V.
Cyril, S.
Briggs, A.M.
Clavisi, O.
Duque, G.
Harris, I.A.
Hill, C.
Hiller, C.
Kamper, S.J.
Latimer, J.
Lawson, A.
Lin, C.W.C.
Maher, C.
Perriman, D.
Richards, B.L.
Smitham, P.
Taylor, W.J.
Whittle, S.
Buchbinder, R.
Citation: BMJ Open, 2018; 8(12):e023962-1-e023962-9
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
Issue Date: 2018
ISSN: 2044-6055
Statement of
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
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
Keywords: Musculoskeletal disorders; scoping review
Rights: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. 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/.
RMID: 0030105784
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023962
Grant ID:
Appears in Collections:Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_117849.pdfPublished version938.99 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.