Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the James Lind Alliance methodology
Objectives: To identify and prioritise important research questions for miscarriage. Design: A priority setting partnership using prospective surveys and consensus meetings following methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. Setting: United Kingdom Participants: Women and those affected by mi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/44144/ |
| _version_ | 1848796847152300032 |
|---|---|
| author | Prior, Matthew Bagness, Carmel Brewin, Jane Coomarasamy, Arri Easthope, Lucy Hepworth-Jones, Barbara Hinshaw, Kim O'Toole, Emily Orford, Julie Regan, Lesley Raine-Fenning, Nick Shakespeare, Judy Small, Rachel Thornton, Jim Metcalf, Leanne |
| author_facet | Prior, Matthew Bagness, Carmel Brewin, Jane Coomarasamy, Arri Easthope, Lucy Hepworth-Jones, Barbara Hinshaw, Kim O'Toole, Emily Orford, Julie Regan, Lesley Raine-Fenning, Nick Shakespeare, Judy Small, Rachel Thornton, Jim Metcalf, Leanne |
| author_sort | Prior, Matthew |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Objectives: To identify and prioritise important research questions for miscarriage.
Design: A priority setting partnership using prospective surveys and consensus meetings following methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.
Setting: United Kingdom
Participants: Women and those affected by miscarriage working alongside healthcare professionals.
Results: In the initial survey, 1093 participants (932 women who have experienced miscarriage, 8 partners, 17 family members, friends or colleagues, 104 HCPs and 8 charitable organisations) submitted 3279 questions. A review of existing literature identified a further 64. Non-questions were removed and the remaining questions were categorised and summarised into 58 questions. In an interim electronic survey 2122 respondents chose their top ten priorities from the 58 summary questions. The 25 highest ranked in the survey were prioritised at a final face-to-face workshop. In summary, the top ten priorities were ranked as follows: research into preventative treatment, emotional aspects in general, investigation, relevance of pre-existing medical conditions, emotional support as a treatment, importance of lifestyle factors, importance of genetic and chromosomal causes, preconception tests, investigation after different numbers of miscarriage and male causal factors.
Conclusions: These results should be the focus of future miscarriage research. Presently, studies are being conducted to address the top priority, however many other priorities, especially psychological and emotional support are less well researched areas. We hope our results will encourage both researchers and funders to focus on these priorities. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:54:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-44144 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:54:29Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-441442020-05-04T18:58:39Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/44144/ Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the James Lind Alliance methodology Prior, Matthew Bagness, Carmel Brewin, Jane Coomarasamy, Arri Easthope, Lucy Hepworth-Jones, Barbara Hinshaw, Kim O'Toole, Emily Orford, Julie Regan, Lesley Raine-Fenning, Nick Shakespeare, Judy Small, Rachel Thornton, Jim Metcalf, Leanne Objectives: To identify and prioritise important research questions for miscarriage. Design: A priority setting partnership using prospective surveys and consensus meetings following methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. Setting: United Kingdom Participants: Women and those affected by miscarriage working alongside healthcare professionals. Results: In the initial survey, 1093 participants (932 women who have experienced miscarriage, 8 partners, 17 family members, friends or colleagues, 104 HCPs and 8 charitable organisations) submitted 3279 questions. A review of existing literature identified a further 64. Non-questions were removed and the remaining questions were categorised and summarised into 58 questions. In an interim electronic survey 2122 respondents chose their top ten priorities from the 58 summary questions. The 25 highest ranked in the survey were prioritised at a final face-to-face workshop. In summary, the top ten priorities were ranked as follows: research into preventative treatment, emotional aspects in general, investigation, relevance of pre-existing medical conditions, emotional support as a treatment, importance of lifestyle factors, importance of genetic and chromosomal causes, preconception tests, investigation after different numbers of miscarriage and male causal factors. Conclusions: These results should be the focus of future miscarriage research. Presently, studies are being conducted to address the top priority, however many other priorities, especially psychological and emotional support are less well researched areas. We hope our results will encourage both researchers and funders to focus on these priorities. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-08-01 Article PeerReviewed Prior, Matthew, Bagness, Carmel, Brewin, Jane, Coomarasamy, Arri, Easthope, Lucy, Hepworth-Jones, Barbara, Hinshaw, Kim, O'Toole, Emily, Orford, Julie, Regan, Lesley, Raine-Fenning, Nick, Shakespeare, Judy, Small, Rachel, Thornton, Jim and Metcalf, Leanne (2017) Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the James Lind Alliance methodology. BMJ Open, 7 . e016571. ISSN 2044-6055 Reproductive medicine Qualitative research Statistics & research methods Ultrasound Depression & mood disorders http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/8/e016571.full doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016571 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016571 |
| spellingShingle | Reproductive medicine Qualitative research Statistics & research methods Ultrasound Depression & mood disorders Prior, Matthew Bagness, Carmel Brewin, Jane Coomarasamy, Arri Easthope, Lucy Hepworth-Jones, Barbara Hinshaw, Kim O'Toole, Emily Orford, Julie Regan, Lesley Raine-Fenning, Nick Shakespeare, Judy Small, Rachel Thornton, Jim Metcalf, Leanne Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the James Lind Alliance methodology |
| title | Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the James Lind Alliance methodology |
| title_full | Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the James Lind Alliance methodology |
| title_fullStr | Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the James Lind Alliance methodology |
| title_full_unstemmed | Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the James Lind Alliance methodology |
| title_short | Priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the James Lind Alliance methodology |
| title_sort | priorities for research in miscarriage: a priority setting partnership between people affected by miscarriage and professionals, following the james lind alliance methodology |
| topic | Reproductive medicine Qualitative research Statistics & research methods Ultrasound Depression & mood disorders |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/44144/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/44144/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/44144/ |