Published in

BMJ Publishing Group, BMJ Open Gastroenterology, 1(9), p. e000847, 2022

DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2021-000847

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Rapid priority setting exercise on faecal incontinence for Cochrane Incontinence

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

ObjectiveThis rapid priority setting exercise aimed to identify, expand, prioritise and explore stakeholder (patients, carers and healthcare practitioners) topic uncertainties on faecal incontinence (FI).DesignAn evidence gap map (EGM) was produced to give a visual overview of emerging trial evidence; existing systematic review-level evidence and FI stakeholder topic uncertainties derived from a survey. This EGM was used in a knowledge exchange workshop that promoted group discussions leading to the prioritisation and exploration of FI stakeholder identified topic uncertainties.ResultsOverall, a mismatch between the existing and emerging evidence and key FI stakeholder topic uncertainties was found. The prioritised topic uncertainties identified in the workshop were as follows: psychological support; lifestyle interventions; long-term effects of living with FI; education; constipation and the cultural impact of FI. When these six prioritised topic uncertainties were explored in more depth, the following themes were identified: education; impact and burden of living with FI; psychological support; healthcare service improvements and inconsistencies; the stigma of FI; treatments and management; culturally appropriate management and technology and its accessibility.ConclusionsTopic uncertainties identified were broad and wide ranging even after prioritisation. More research is required to unpick the themes emerging from the in-depth discussion and explore these further to achieve a consensus on deliverable research questions.