Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr 28;8(4):e021276.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021276.

Shared research priorities for pessary use in women with prolapse: results from a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Kate Lough  1 , Suzanne Hagen  1 , Doreen McClurg  1 , Alex Pollock  1 ; JLA Pessary PSP Steering Group
Affiliations

Shared research priorities for pessary use in women with prolapse: results from a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Kate Lough et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To identify the shared priorities for future research of women affected by and clinicians involved with pessary use for the management of prolapse.

Design: A priority setting project using a consensus method.

Setting: A James Lind Alliance Pessary use for prolapse Priority Setting Partnership (JLA Pessary PSP) conducted from May 2016 to September 2017 in the UK.

Participants: The PSP was run by a Steering Group of three women with experience of pessary use, three experienced clinicians involved with management of prolapse, two researchers with relevant experience, a JLA adviser and a PSP leader. Two surveys were conducted in 2016 and 2017. The first gathered questions about pessaries, and the second asked respondents to prioritise a list of questions. A final workshop was held on 8 September 2017 involving 10 women and 13 clinician representatives with prolapse and pessary experience.

Results: A top 10 list of priorities for future research in pessary use for prolapse was agreed by consensus.

Conclusions: Women with experience of pessary use and clinicians involved with prolapse management have worked together to determine shared priorities for future research. Aligning the top 10 results with existing research findings will highlight the gaps in current evidence and signpost future research to areas of priority. Effective dissemination of the results will enable research funding bodies to focus on gathering the evidence to answer the questions that matter most to those who will be affected.

Keywords: consensus; health priorities; pelvic organ prolapse; pessaries.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
James Lind Alliance (JLA) Pessary Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) final workshop flow chart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, et al. . Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1160–6. 10.1067/mob.2002.123819 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF, et al. . Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. BJOG 2013;120:152–60. 10.1111/1471-0528.12020 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Panman CMCR, Wiegersma M, Kollen BJ, et al. . Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment compared with pelvic floor muscle training in older women with pelvic organ prolapse. Menopause 2016;23:1307–18. 10.1097/GME.0000000000000706 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. . An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). Neurourol Urodyn 2016;35:137–68. 10.1002/nau.22922 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oliver R, Thakar R, Sultan AH. The history and usage of the vaginal pessary: a review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;156:125–30. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.039 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types