Shouldering our Way into a More Meaningful Research Agenda for Atraumatic Shoulder Pain: A Priority Setting Study - Lyng, KD; Børsting, TK; Clausen, MB; Larsen, AH; Liaghat, B; Ingwersen, KG; Bateman, M; Rangan, A; Bjørnholdt, KT; Christiansen, DH; Jensen, SL; Thomsen, JNL; et al. (medRxiv, 2024)
IMPORTANCE Atraumatic shoulder pain poses a significant burden to society and the individual. There is a growing need for involving patients and other stakeholders in setting the research agenda.OBJECTIVE To use the voice of people living with atraumatic shoulder pain, healthcare practitioners, and their relatives to establish research questions.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This priority-setting study followed a modified approach originally formulated by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). The process consisted of six phases (initiation, consultation, collation, prioritization, validation, and reporting) and included two e-surveys and two separate virtual workshops. Data collection started on June 2021 until June 2023. We included people with atraumatic shoulder pain, relatives, healthcare practitioners managing shoulder pain, and researchers conducting research within the field.EXPOSURES The first e-survey included basic demographic questions and the possibility to submit at least one and a maximum of five potential research questions. Based on a thematic analysis, questions were arranged into themes and related questions. In the second e-survey, participants were asked to prioritize the questions. Finally, two priority-setting partnership workshop was used to formulate a top-10 list.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A top-25 and top-10 list of research questions related to atraumatic shoulder pain.RESULTS Initially, 297 participants submitted 1080 potential research questions. In the second e-survey 290 participants prioritized these questions resulting in a compilation of the top 25. Based on discussions from the workshops with a total of 21 participants, a top 10 list was created.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In the final top 10 list, the three research questions with the highest ranking concerned 1) translating the best available knowledge into clinical practice, 2) preventing shoulder pain, and 3) identifying who benefits from surgery. These questions informs future research funding and projects relating to atraumatic shoulder pain.Question What are the top research priorities with atraumatic shoulder pain that can help directing future research agendas for improving current care.Findings This priority-setting study included two e-surveys and two virtual workshops to establish top-10 research questions based on input from people living with atraumatic shoulder pain, healthcare practitioners, and relatives. The final list focused on improving knowledge translation to clinical practice, prevention of pain and identifying who benefits from surgery.Meaning This lists provide funders, policymakers, and researchers with user-generated knowledge on where to prioritize their resources for creating meaningful improvements in the management of atraumatic shoulder pain.Competing Interest StatementAll authors state no conflict of interest, except Dr. Steen Lund Jensen and Prof. Amar Rangan. Dr. Steen Lund Jensen has previously received consulting fees from Zimmer Biomet outside the project. Furthermore, he has received payment from the European Commission Screening Panel for Medical Devices for his expertise. This had also no influence on the project. The department of Prof. Amar Rangan has previously received research and educational grants from DePuy J&J Ltd., again that was outside this project and hence had no influence on the project.Funding StatementThis study was funded by TrygFonden (ID: 152495), Danske Fysioterapeuter, and Aalborg University. None of the sponsors were involved in the process. The sponsors are non-commercial and declare no conflicts of interest.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Regional (Nothern Jutland, Denmark) ethical approval was deemed exempt due to the low-risk nature of the study.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.