TranslateThe purpose of this Question Verification Form is to enable Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to describe clearly how they checked that their questions were unanswered, before starting the interim prioritisation stage of the process.
The JLA requires PSPs to be transparent and accountable in defining their own scope and evidence checking process. This will enable researchers and other stakeholders to understand how individual PSPs decided that their questions were unanswered, and any limitations of their evidence checking.
Name of the PSP
Foot Health
Please describe the scope of the PSP
The PSP aimed to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about diagnosis, treatment and prevention of foot health problems from patient/carer and clinician perspectives. It did not cover foot and ankle surgery.
Please provide a brief overview of your approach to checking whether the questions were unanswered
All submitted uncertainties were thematically analysed and grouped into broad categories by Andrea Graham (Information Specialist) with agreement sought via an iterative approach about the development if the Indicative Questions, to ensure that the questions reflected the raw data.
The research evidence was checked within the time frame of March 2009 – March 2019 to ensure the Indicative Questions had not been answered, using key terms , data bases and limitations as outlined below.
The search strategy was agreed by the Steering Group before it was conducted to ensure no potential sources of evidence were omitted.
The list was reviewed by the Steering Group in face to face / teleconference (for those unable to physically attend) and cross-checked with Steering Group members personal knowledge.
Please list the type(s) of evidence you used to verify your questions as unanswered
Evidence was checked as per the JLA method recommended minimum- using peer reviewed medical and scientific literature.
Please list the sources that you searched in order to identify that evidence
- The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Protocols
- NICE / SIGN guidance
- Relevant Royal College Guidance
- Additionally: PubMed and OVID databases were checked for any further large systematic reviews as relevant to the PSP scope and Indicative Questions.
What search terms did you use?
“Foothealth”, “Podiatry”, “Footcare”, AND “Primary Care”, AND “Patient Education” AND “Arthritis”, AND “SelfManagement Programme”, AND “Prevention”, AND “Rheumatoid Arthritis”, AND “Musculoskeletal”, AND “Pregnancy”, “Foot Orthoses” AND “Pain”, “Plantar Warts”, “Onychomycosis”, “Achilles Tendonitis”, “Foot” AND “Systematic Review”. NICE Guidelines search: “Feet” , “Podiatry” – SIGN guideline – desktop search of listed guidelines on website.
Search terms were influenced by the words within the indicative questions.
Please describe the parameters of the search (eg time limits, excluded sources, country/language) and the rationale for any limitations
March 2009 – March 2019, Systematic Reviews, In English Language.
Names of individuals who undertook the evidence checking
Dr Andrea Graham Approved by the PSP Steering Group
On what date was the question verification process completed?
30th May, 2019
Any other relevant information
None
Version 1 Date 11.12.2019