Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Methods Design: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA). Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Information sources: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021. Outcome measures: Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies. Data synthesis: Random-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA. Results We included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70–0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98–0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88–0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97–0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83–1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69–1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48–0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44–1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined. Conclusions Rapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required. Review registration PROSPERO CRD42021289712

IntroductionIndividual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is regarded as the gold standard for evidence synthesis. However, diverse recommendations and guidance on its conduct exist, and there is no consensus-based tool for the critical appraisal of a completed IPD-MA. We aim to close this gap by systematically identifying quality items and developing and validating a critical appraisal checklist for IPD-MA.Methods and analysisThis study will comprise three phases, as follows:Phase 1: a systematic methodology review to identify potential checklist domains and items; this will be conducted according to the Cochrane methods for systematic reviews and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis 2020 guidance. We will include studies that address methodological guides and essential statistical requirements for IPD-MA. We will use the proposed items to prepare a preliminary checklist for the e-Delphi study.Phase 2: at least two rounds of an e-Delphi survey will be conducted among panels with expertise in IPD-MA research, consensus development, healthcare providers, journal editors, healthcare policymakers, patients and public partners from diverse geographic locations with experience in IPD-MA. Participants will use Qualtrics software to rate items on a 5-point Likert scale. The Wilcoxon matched signed rank test will estimate response stability across rounds. Consensus on including an item will be achieved if ≥75% of the panel rates the item as ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ and items will be excluded if ≥75% rates it as ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’. A convenience sample of 10 reviewers with experience in conducting an IPD-MA will pilot-test the checklist to provide practical feedback that will be used to refine the checklist.Phase 3: critical appraisal checklist validation: to improve confidence in the tool’s uptake, a subset of the e-Delphi participants and graduate students of epidemiology and biostatistics will conduct content validity and reliability testing, respectively, per the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained from the Western University Health Science Research Ethics Board in Canada. The validated checklist will be published in a peer-reviewed open-access journal and shared across the networks of this study’s steering committee, Cochrane IPD-MA group and the institutions’ social media platforms.

Background Authentic researcher-youth partnerships in patient-oriented research (POR) where the research responds to the needs expressed by youth themselves are essential to make research meaningful. While patient-oriented research (POR) is increasingly practiced, few training programs exist in Canada and none, to our knowledge, are tailored for youth with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDD). Our primary objective was to explore the training needs of youth (ages 18–25) with NDD to enhance their knowledge, confidence, and skills as research partners. Our secondary objective was to identify the benefits and challenges of engaging youth with NDD in a POR approach. Methods Our team of four youth and one parent with lived experience [Youth Engagement in Research (YER) partners] and six researchers engaged in POR to investigate the primary objective via two phases: (1) individual interviews with youth living with NDD and (2) a two-day virtual symposium with focus groups with youth and researchers. Collaborative qualitative content analysis was employed to synthesize the data. Our secondary objective was assessed by asking our YER partners to complete the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) survey and participate in reflective discussions. Results Phase 1 participants (n = 7) identified various barriers and facilitators to their engagement in research and offered suggestions to meet their needs through minimizing barriers and integrating facilitators, which would subsequently enhance their knowledge, confidence, and skills as research partners. Informed by phase 1, phase 2 participants (n = 17) prioritized the following POR training needs: researcher-youth communication, research roles and responsibilities, and finding partnership opportunities. For delivery methods, participants stated the importance of youth representation, using Universal Design for Learning, and co-learning between youth and researchers. Based on the PPEET data and subsequent discussions, YER partners agreed that they were able to express views freely, feel that their views were heard, and that their participation made a meaningful difference. Challenges included scheduling difficulties, ensuring multiple methods for engagement, and working under short timelines. Conclusion This study identified important training needs for youth with NDD and for researchers to engage in meaningful POR, which can subsequently inform the co-production of accessible training opportunities with and for youth. Plain English summary Partnerships between researchers and youth, known as patient-oriented research (POR), are needed to make sure research is meaningful to youth. Our main goal was to explore the training needs of youth (ages 18-25) with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDD) to enhance their knowledge, confidence, and skills as research partners. To find out, our team of four youth and one parent with lived experience (YER partners) and six researchers completed this project in two parts: 1) interviews with youth and 2) a two-day virtual workshop with youth and researchers. Data from the two parts were reviewed to answer our question. We learned from Part 1 that the needs of participants can be met by providing support and reducing barriers in POR. From Part 2, the top three important topics in partnerships were: researcher-youth communication, research roles and responsibilities, and finding partnership opportunities. Participants in the workshop emphasized having different youth represented, using a framework that allows learning for everyone, and co-learning between youth and researchers in the creation of learning materials. Our second goal was to understand the benefits and challenges of our partnership. To assess, YER partners completed a survey and reflected about their experiences. YER partners agreed on being able to express views, feel that their views were heard, and that their participation made a meaningful difference. Challenges included scheduling difficulties, providing multiple ways to partner, and working under short timelines. Overall, the study described important POR needs for youth and researchers, which can inform future training opportunities.

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recognized as important, yet no guidance exists on integrating young people and family caregiver perspectives in the development of research reporting guidelines. We developed two paediatric-specific extensions with young people (ages 10–24 years) and family caregivers (YPFC) for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines: SPIRIT-Children and Adolescents 2025 (SPIRIT-C) and CONSORT-Children and Adolescents 2025 (CONSORT-C). This case study describes how we involved YPFC in the development of SPIRIT-C and CONSORT-C and identified enablers of impactful PPI. Main text We formed a Youth Advisory Group (ages 13–19 years) and a Family Caregiver Advisory Group. A miniseries of two Young Person Reporting Guideline workshops aimed at generating randomised controlled trials (RCT) reporting items were conducted virtually in Canada, England, France, Scotland, and Spain, engaging 42 young people (ages 10–21 years). Young people (ages 19–24 years) and family caregivers participated as panellists in an international Delphi study. Family caregiver advisors actively contributed to the Consensus Meeting and to the writing process of the guidelines’ Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) documents. After each project stage, YPFC feedback was collected. PPI impact was defined as tangible changes, learnings, and outcomes, both positive and negative, to the guideline development process and the final guidelines resulting from YPFC co-development. YPFC found their involvement in the project a valuable experience. Their contributions to key project stages, such as the Delphi study, Consensus Meeting, and the development of the E&E documents impacted the final guidelines and E&E documents, with the inclusion of four new youth generated reporting items. Feedback throughout the project informed six “enablers” for productive partnerships in reporting guideline development: (1) designated point person, (2) tailored training, (3) access to project materials, (4) clear expectations on time commitment and compensation, (5) structured check-in sessions, and (6) demonstrated openness to feedback. Conclusion With careful preparation, investing in impactful PPI enablers, YPFC can meaningfully contribute to the development of research reporting guidelines, improve final deliverables, and ultimately shape research that reflects their perspectives. Plain English summary Young people and family caregivers (YPFC) are end-users of paediatric research reports. To ensure that items of importance to them are reported, they should have a say in what key items of a study should be reported. While there is increased interest in involving YPFC in health research, guidance on how best to involve young people ages 10–24 years and family caregivers in the development of research reporting guidelines does not exist. Recently, recommendations on how patient and public partners can be meaningfully involved in research reporting guideline development were published, though these recommendations were informed by the experiences of adult partners. This study is the first to involve YPFC in the development of reporting guidelines for paediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs). It describes the experience of this involvement from multiple perspectives and evaluates YPFC’s impact on the final guidelines. YPFCs contributed to the generation of candidate reporting items, a three-round Delphi study, Consensus Meeting, and writing/review of the Explanation and Elaboration documents. Using formal evaluations after each project stage, we identified six enablers for their effective involvement in future projects that aim to add value to child health research by integrating YPFCs perspectives. Investing in enablers for effective YPFC involvement may improve research practice and yield increased relevance and utility of child health research deliverables and outcomes for end-users and add value to research reflecting YPFC perspectives.

Patient engagement in research is the meaningful and active involvement of patient/caregiver partners (i.e., patients and their family/friends) in research priority-setting, conduct, and governance. With the proper support, patient/caregiver partners can inform every stage of the research cycle, but common barriers often prevent their full engagement. This participatory qualitative study answered the question: What are the facilitators and barriers to patient engagement experienced by patient/caregiver partners in a Canadian research context? Participants were N = 13 patient/caregiver partners (Mage = 62 years, 85% women; 100% White) from four provinces who completed 60-90-minute semi-structured online interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. One researcher and one patient/caregiver partner reviewed the transcripts and curated a dataset of 90 participant quotations representing facilitators and barriers to patient engagement. This dataset was co-analyzed using Participatory Theme Elicitation alongside seven patient/caregiver partners with diverse identities who were not among the participants we interviewed and, therefore, contributed novel perspectives. Four themes depicted factors that facilitate meaningful patient engagement alongside barriers that arise when these factors are not in place: (1) Co-defining roles and expectations, (2) Demonstrating the value and impact of engagement, (3) Psychological safety, and (4) Educating the public, patient/caregiver partners, and researchers. We then discuss how barriers to enacting these four factors can be mitigated and provide a practical checklist of considerations for both researchers and patient/caregiver partners for engaging together throughout the research cycle. Researchers and patient/caregiver partners should draw from our findings to mitigate engagement barriers and facilitate meaningful engagement experiences.

Motor proteins from the kinesin-5 subfamily play an essential role in spindle assembly during cell division of most organisms. These motors crosslink and slide microtubules in the spindle. Kinesin-5 motors are phosphorylated at a conserved site by Cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (Cdk1) during mitosis. Xenopus laevis kinesin-5 has also been reported to be phosphorylated by Aurora A in vitro. We investigate here the effect of these phosphorylations on kinesin-5 from Xenopus laevis, called Eg5. We find that phosphorylation at threonine 937 in the C-terminal tail of Eg5 by Cdk1 does not affect the velocity of Eg5, but strongly increases its binding to microtubules assembled in buffer. Likewise, this phosphorylation promotes binding of Eg5 to microtubules in Xenopus egg extract spindles. This enhancement of binding elevates the amount of Eg5 in spindles above a critical level required for bipolar spindle formation. We find furthermore that phosphorylation of Xenopus laevis Eg5 by Aurora A at serine 543 in the stalk is not required for spindle formation. These results show that phosphorylation of Eg5 by Cdk1 has a direct effect on the interaction of this motor with microtubules. In egg extract, phosphorylation of Eg5 by Cdk1 ensures that the amount of Eg5 in the spindle is above a level that is required for spindle formation. This enhanced targeting to the spindle appears therefore to be, at least in part, a direct consequence of the enhanced binding of Eg5 to microtubules upon phosphorylation by Cdk1. These findings advance our understanding of the regulation of this essential mitotic motor protein.

Introduction Patients, caregivers, and community partners (PCC) can have a variety of roles in learning health systems (LHS), such as contributing their data from healthcare encounters to embedded, continuous engagement where they identify health system priorities, guide operational, research, and quality improvement decisions, and facilitate knowledge sharing and implementation. Despite many LHS models placing emphasis on PCC, little has been done to help members of the public understand what a LHS is or initiate dialogue about how they can learn more and become engaged. We brought together a national network of PCC to co‐create an everyday language, arts‐based resource for the public to learn what a LHS is and how it relates to patient care journeys. Methods Thirteen PCC with LHS experience from across Canada attended two 2‐h virtual workshops to generate ideas on how to better define LHS using everyday language, determine accessible ways to share this information, and co‐design a comic strip that can be widely shared across diverse settings and communities. Results We co‐created a six‐panel comic strip that depicts a relatable patient experience of waiting in an emergency department. The comic shows that in a LHS, patients are invited to contribute their perspectives about improving healthcare and support implementing and testing new ideas in clinical settings. Creating this comic was considered important for various reasons: to promote a common language around LHS, to build trust between health systems and the public, and to widen the community of PCC who are engaged in LHS activities. Conclusions This comic is intended to build capacity for LHS culture, where the public can understand how continuous learning and improvement fit within health care, and learn about opportunities for engagement in LHS.

Antifreeze proteins similar to two different chitinases accumulate during cold acclimation in winter rye (Secale cereale). To determine whether these cold-responsive chitinases require post-translational modification to bind to ice, cDNAs coding for two different full-length chitinases were isolated from a cDNA library produced from cold-acclimated winter rye leaves. CHT9 is a 1,193-bp clone that encodes a 31.7-kD class I chitinase and CHT46 is a 998-bp clone that codes for a 24.8-kD class II chitinase. Chitinase-antifreeze proteins purified from the plant were similar in mass to the predicted mature products of CHT9 and CHT46, thus indicating that there was little chemical modification of the amino acid sequences in planta. To confirm these results, the mature sequences of CHT9 and CHT46 were expressed in Escherichia coli and the products of both cDNAs modified the growth of ice. Transcripts of both genes accumulated late in cold acclimation in winter rye. Southern analysis of winter rye genomic DNA indicated the presence of a small gene family homologous to CHT46. In hexaploid wheat, CHT46 homologs mapped to the homeologous group 1 chromosomes and were expressed in response to cold and drought. We conclude that two novel cold-responsive genes encoding chitinases with ice-binding activity may have arisen in winter rye and other cereals through gene duplication.

To describe the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance's methodological approach to systematically identify 23 high priority health research topics (three in 2021 and 20 in 2023) from patient partners (including caregivers) and members of the public across Canada and beyond.OBJECTIVESTo describe the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance's methodological approach to systematically identify 23 high priority health research topics (three in 2021 and 20 in 2023) from patient partners (including caregivers) and members of the public across Canada and beyond.In 2021 and 2023, we collaborated with patient and public partners to co-design and co-conduct two priority setting initiatives. These initiatives involved a diverse group of patients, the public, clinicians, researchers, and health system decision-makers to systematically and collectively prioritize research topics based on their perceived importance and anticipated impact. We used a modified James Lind Alliance approach, where all participants were engaged as equal partners. The prioritization process consisted of the following steps: 1) identification and collection of research priorities from patients and the public; 2) summarizing the research priorities gathered; 3) conducting semistructured interviews (1-on-1 or focus groups depending on the number of submissions for each unique topic), conducting literature searches on each topic to identify relevant knowledge synthesis and appraising the quality of relevant evidence using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist, and preparing lay summaries (1-2 pages) for each unique topic using a predefined template cocreated with patient partners; 4) conducting a priority setting exercise with a multidisciplinary panel consisting of an interim priority setting rating questionnaire to score each topic based on nine questions, followed by a virtual workshop to reach consensus on the final rating and ranking of topics; and 5) facilitating research by funding selected topics and providing capacity-building support to research teams. We conducted a formal process evaluation of engagement, transparency, information management, and considerations of values and context in 2023.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGIn 2021 and 2023, we collaborated with patient and public partners to co-design and co-conduct two priority setting initiatives. These initiatives involved a diverse group of patients, the public, clinicians, researchers, and health system decision-makers to systematically and collectively prioritize research topics based on their perceived importance and anticipated impact. We used a modified James Lind Alliance approach, where all participants were engaged as equal partners. The prioritization process consisted of the following steps: 1) identification and collection of research priorities from patients and the public; 2) summarizing the research priorities gathered; 3) conducting semistructured interviews (1-on-1 or focus groups depending on the number of submissions for each unique topic), conducting literature searches on each topic to identify relevant knowledge synthesis and appraising the quality of relevant evidence using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist, and preparing lay summaries (1-2 pages) for each unique topic using a predefined template cocreated with patient partners; 4) conducting a priority setting exercise with a multidisciplinary panel consisting of an interim priority setting rating questionnaire to score each topic based on nine questions, followed by a virtual workshop to reach consensus on the final rating and ranking of topics; and 5) facilitating research by funding selected topics and providing capacity-building support to research teams. We conducted a formal process evaluation of engagement, transparency, information management, and considerations of values and context in 2023.A total of 98 topics were received across two research priority setting initiatives. Approximately, half the submissions were made by individuals who identified as patients (2021: 45% [n = 5] and 2023: 52% [n = 45]), whereas the rest identified as caregivers or members of the public. Topics were spread across 26 health themes, with arthritis and osteoporosis (27% [n = 3]) being the most common theme in 2021 and quality of care (26% [n = 23]) in 2023. Twenty-three priorities from 98 topics submitted by patients and public were selected. A formal process evaluation in 2023 revealed 85% of the respondents who participated in the priority setting panel \"strongly agreed\" that their experience was valuable and they would participate again in a future initiative. The 23 prioritized projects are currently being co-led with the patient and public partner topic submitters and nominated research teams.RESULTSA total of 98 topics were received across two research priority setting initiatives. Approximately, half the submissions were made by individuals who identified as patients (2021: 45% [n = 5] and 2023: 52% [n = 45]), whereas the rest identified as caregivers or members of the public. Topics were spread across 26 health themes, with arthritis and osteoporosis (27% [n = 3]) being the most common theme in 2021 and quality of care (26% [n = 23]) in 2023. Twenty-three priorities from 98 topics submitted by patients and public were selected. A formal process evaluation in 2023 revealed 85% of the respondents who participated in the priority setting panel \"strongly agreed\" that their experience was valuable and they would participate again in a future initiative. The 23 prioritized projects are currently being co-led with the patient and public partner topic submitters and nominated research teams.Priority setting exercises successfully engaged a diverse group of interested parties, resulting in the identification of relevant and impactful research topics. The positive feedback from participants suggests that these exercises were well-received and that similar methodologies should be applied and refined in future efforts.CONCLUSIONPriority setting exercises successfully engaged a diverse group of interested parties, resulting in the identification of relevant and impactful research topics. The positive feedback from participants suggests that these exercises were well-received and that similar methodologies should be applied and refined in future efforts.The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance used a patient- and public-driven approach to set research priorities across different topics. They conducted two priority setting initiatives in 2021 and 2023, involving patients, the public, researchers, clinicians, and health system managers. This approach aimed to prioritize research topics based on their perceived importance and anticipated impact. A total of 98 topics were received across two research priority setting initiatives, with nearly half the submissions from patients and the other half from caregivers or members of the public. The topics covered 26 health themes, with arthritis and osteoporosis (2021) and quality of care (2023) being the most common themes. From these topics, the 23 highest priority topics were selected by a multidisciplinary priority setting panel. A formal process evaluation in 2023 revealed that 85% of the respondents who participated in the priority setting panel \"strongly agreed\" that their experience was valuable, and they would participate again in a future initiative. In conclusion, the priority setting exercises successfully engaged a diverse group of individuals and identified important research topics. The positive feedback suggests that this approach was well received and should be applied in future efforts.PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYThe Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance used a patient- and public-driven approach to set research priorities across different topics. They conducted two priority setting initiatives in 2021 and 2023, involving patients, the public, researchers, clinicians, and health system managers. This approach aimed to prioritize research topics based on their perceived importance and anticipated impact. A total of 98 topics were received across two research priority setting initiatives, with nearly half the submissions from patients and the other half from caregivers or members of the public. The topics covered 26 health themes, with arthritis and osteoporosis (2021) and quality of care (2023) being the most common themes. From these topics, the 23 highest priority topics were selected by a multidisciplinary priority setting panel. A formal process evaluation in 2023 revealed that 85% of the respondents who participated in the priority setting panel \"strongly agreed\" that their experience was valuable, and they would participate again in a future initiative. In conclusion, the priority setting exercises successfully engaged a diverse group of individuals and identified important research topics. The positive feedback suggests that this approach was well received and should be applied in future efforts.

To describe the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance's methodological approach to systematically identify 23 high priority health research topics (three in 2021 and 20 in 2023) from patient partners (including caregivers) and members of the public across Canada and beyond. In 2021 and 2023, we collaborated with patient and public partners to co-design and co-conduct two priority setting initiatives. These initiatives involved a diverse group of patients, the public, clinicians, researchers, and health system decision-makers to systematically and collectively prioritize research topics based on their perceived importance and anticipated impact. We used a modified James Lind Alliance approach, where all participants were engaged as equal partners. The prioritization process consisted of the following steps: 1) identification and collection of research priorities from patients and the public; 2) summarizing the research priorities gathered; 3) conducting semistructured interviews (1-on-1 or focus groups depending on the number of submissions for each unique topic), conducting literature searches on each topic to identify relevant knowledge synthesis and appraising the quality of relevant evidence using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist, and preparing lay summaries (1–2 pages) for each unique topic using a predefined template cocreated with patient partners; 4) conducting a priority setting exercise with a multidisciplinary panel consisting of an interim priority setting rating questionnaire to score each topic based on nine questions, followed by a virtual workshop to reach consensus on the final rating and ranking of topics; and 5) facilitating research by funding selected topics and providing capacity-building support to research teams. We conducted a formal process evaluation of engagement, transparency, information management, and considerations of values and context in 2023. A total of 98 topics were received across two research priority setting initiatives. Approximately, half the submissions were made by individuals who identified as patients (2021: 45% [n = 5] and 2023: 52% [n = 45]), whereas the rest identified as caregivers or members of the public. Topics were spread across 26 health themes, with arthritis and osteoporosis (27% [n = 3]) being the most common theme in 2021 and quality of care (26% [n = 23]) in 2023. Twenty-three priorities from 98 topics submitted by patients and public were selected. A formal process evaluation in 2023 revealed 85% of the respondents who participated in the priority setting panel “strongly agreed” that their experience was valuable and they would participate again in a future initiative. The 23 prioritized projects are currently being co-led with the patient and public partner topic submitters and nominated research teams. Priority setting exercises successfully engaged a diverse group of interested parties, resulting in the identification of relevant and impactful research topics. The positive feedback from participants suggests that these exercises were well-received and that similar methodologies should be applied and refined in future efforts. The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Evidence Alliance used a patient- and public-driven approach to set research priorities across different topics. They conducted two priority setting initiatives in 2021 and 2023, involving patients, the public, researchers, clinicians, and health system managers. This approach aimed to prioritize research topics based on their perceived importance and anticipated impact. A total of 98 topics were received across two research priority setting initiatives, with nearly half the submissions from patients and the other half from caregivers or members of the public. The topics covered 26 health themes, with arthritis and osteoporosis (2021) and quality of care (2023) being the most common themes. From these topics, the 23 highest priority topics were selected by a multidisciplinary priority setting panel. A formal process evaluation in 2023 revealed that 85% of the respondents who participated in the priority setting panel “strongly agreed” that their experience was valuable, and they would participate again in a future initiative. In conclusion, the priority setting exercises successfully engaged a diverse group of individuals and identified important research topics. The positive feedback suggests that this approach was well received and should be applied in future efforts.