BACKGROUND We report a process to identify and prioritise research questions in preterm birth that are most important to people affected by preterm birth and healthcare practitioners in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. METHODS Using consensus development methods established by the James Lind Alliance, unanswered research questions were identified using an online survey, a paper survey distributed in NHS preterm birth clinics and neonatal units, and through searching published systematic reviews and guidelines. Prioritisation of these questions was by online voting, with paper copies at the same NHS clinics and units, followed by a decision-making workshop of people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. RESULTS Overall 26 organisations participated. Three hundred and eighty six people responded to the survey, and 636 systematic reviews and 12 clinical guidelines were inspected for research recommendations. From this, a list of 122 uncertainties about the effects of treatment was collated: 70 from the survey, 28 from systematic reviews, and 24 from guidelines. After removing 18 duplicates, the 104 remaining questions went to a public online vote on the top 10. Five hundred and seven people voted; 231 (45%) people affected by preterm birth, 216 (43%) health professionals, and 55 (11%) affected by preterm birth who were also a health professional. Although the top priority was the same for all types of voter, there was variation in how other questions were ranked. Following review by the Steering Group, the top 30 questions were then taken to the prioritisation workshop. A list of top 15 questions was agreed, but with some clear differences in priorities between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS These research questions prioritised by a partnership process between service users and healthcare professionals should inform the decisions of those who plan to fund research. Priorities of people affected by preterm birth were sometimes different from those of healthcare professionals, and future priority setting partnerships should consider reporting these separately, as well as in total.

中文翻译：

---

早产的首要研究重点：受早产影响的人们与医疗保健专业人员之间优先合作关系的结果。

背景技术我们报告了一个过程，该过程确定和优先处理早产中的研究问题，这些问题对于英国和爱尔兰共和国受早产影响的人和医疗保健从业人员最重要。方法使用詹姆斯·林德联盟建立的共识发展方法，通过在线调查，在NHS早产诊所和新生儿科中分发的纸质调查，以及通过搜索已发表的系统评价和指南，确定未回答的研究问题。这些问题的优先级是通过在线投票，在相同的NHS诊所和单位打印纸质副本，然后是一个由早产和医疗保健专业人员影响的人们的决策研讨会。结果共有26个组织参加。386名受访者对此调查做出了回应，检查了636篇系统评价和12篇临床指南，以寻求研究建议。据此，整理出了有关治疗效果的122种不确定性的清单：调查中70项，系统评价28项，指南24项。删除18个重复项后，剩下的104个问题在前10名进行了在线公开投票。231名（45％）受早产影响的人，216名（43％）卫生专业人员和55名（11％）受到早产影响的人也是卫生专业人员。尽管所有类型的选民的头等大事都是相同的，但其他问题的排名方式却有所不同。经过指导小组的审查，然后将前30个问题带入优先级研讨会。会议商定了前15个问题的清单，但是受早产影响的人群与医疗保健专业人员之间在优先级上存在明显差异。结论通过服务用户和医疗保健专业人员之间的合作关系过程优先考虑这些研究问题，应为计划资助研究的人提供决策依据。受早产影响的人们的优先级有时与医疗保健专业人员的优先级不同，因此，未来确定优先级的合作伙伴应考虑分别或整体报告这些优先级。