Skip to main content

[]

Intended for healthcare professionals
Skip to main content

Abstract

Background

The Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) is a new national skin research network. To shape the research landscape and ensure its value to patient care, research priorities that are important to patients, caregivers, and health care providers must be identified.

Objectives

To identify the Top Ten research priorities for 9 key skin conditions.

Methods

We first surveyed health care providers and researchers to select the top skin conditions for future research within the categories of inflammatory skin disease, skin cancers (other than melanoma), and wound healing. For those selected skin conditions, we conducted scoping reviews to identify previous priority setting exercises. We combined the results of those scoping reviews with a survey of patients, health care providers, and researchers to generate lists of knowledge gaps for each condition. We then surveyed patients and health care providers to create preliminary rankings to prioritize those knowledge gaps. Finally, we conducted workshops of patients and health care providers to create the final Top Ten lists of research priorities for each condition.

Results

Overall, 538 patients, health care providers, and researchers participated in at least one survey or workshop. Psoriasis, atopic dermatitis and hidradenitis suppurativa (inflammatory skin disease); chronic wounds, burns and scars (wound healing); and basal cell, squamous cell and Merkel cell carcinoma (skin cancer) were selected as priority skin conditions. Top Ten lists of knowledge gaps for inflammatory skin conditions encompassed a range of issues relevant to patient care, including questions on pathogenesis, prevention, non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic management.

Conclusions

Research priorities derived from patients and health care providers should be used to guide multidisciplinary research networks, funders, and policymakers in Canada and internationally.

Introduction

Substantial progress in skin research over recent decades has led to a better understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of a broad range of skin conditions. As knowledge and societal needs evolve, it is critical to develop up-to-date research priorities that are relevant to patient care. While historically the research agenda has been largely driven by academia, funders, and industry, there is increasing recognition that the perspectives of patients and health care providers must be incorporated in the development of research priorities.1-3
In response to the need for a better understanding of the key knowledge gaps relevant to patients living with skin disease and the health care providers managing them, the Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) conducted a national priority setting initiative (PSI) to determine the most important skin diseases and research questions that ought to be prioritized to improve patient care. SkIN Canada is a national skin research network of researchers, patients, health care providers, and other stakeholders. It was created in 2020 to enhance and expand the skin research landscape in Canada by promoting interdisciplinary, multicentre collaboration. In this paper we present the overall PSI methods and the Top Ten lists of research priorities identified for inflammatory skin conditions psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Methods

We conducted the study using the James Lind Alliance’s Guiding Principles of Priority Setting Exercises.1 These include transparency; inclusion of balanced patient, caregiver and health care provider perspectives; exclusion of non-health care provider researchers from voting processes; and excluding stakeholders with significant competing interests (e.g., pharmaceutical companies). We used a seven step process to identify stakeholders, select priority skin conditions, identify knowledge gaps and, finally, rank knowledge gaps to create a list of priority research questions.1,4
This project was approved by the Women’s College Hospital Research Ethics Board. Surveys were conducted in both English and French using REDCap and SOGOSurvey software.

Step 1: Stakeholder Identification

Relevant stakeholders were patients who currently live or previously lived with skin conditions; caregivers, defined as family and friends who provide support to patients; health care providers involved in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of skin conditions; and skin researchers. We limited participation to individuals aged 16 years or older and residing in Canada. Parents of individuals under 16 years of age were encouraged to participate as caregivers and consult with their children about shared concerns.
To identify individual stakeholders, we first contacted stakeholder organizations including existing professional networks of members of the SkIN Canada Executive and Steering Committees and web searches of national organizations. Stakeholder organizations were asked to disseminate information about the project to their members and affiliates.

Step 2: Determining Priority Skin Conditions (Survey 1)

Stakeholder organizations distributed an online survey to health care providers and researchers. Patients and caregivers were excluded from this step, as they may prioritize conditions with which they have personal experience.
Health care providers and researchers were asked to list up to five skin conditions in order of burden and importance to Canadians within each of three categories: inflammatory skin conditions; wound healing, skin fibrosis and regeneration; and skin cancers other than melanoma. SkIN Canada focused on these three broad categories based on previous consultations with the skin research community.
The survey did not define specific criteria for respondents to consider when ranking the importance of their selected skin conditions. Aggregate rankings across all responses were created using the Ranked-Pairs (Tideman) electoral system.5 Ranked-Pairs is a form of Condorcet election method that ranks candidates based on voter preference in a series of head-to-head matchups; the voting system meets almost all formal voting criteria for fair and logical elections and produces an overall ranked list.5 The three highest-ranked conditions from each category proceeded to the next step of the PSI.

Step 3: Literature Review of Prior Priority Setting Exercises

We performed a literature review of previously conducted priority setting exercises for each skin condition selected in Step 2. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Google in February 2021 for publications in English using the search terms
(Priorit* OR Uncertaint* OR Gap* OR Research Question* OR Rank*)
AND [terms for skin condition determined in Survey Round 1]
We included priority setting exercises published since 2012 to increase their relevance to current practice. We collated and deduplicated the previously identified priorities into a list of unique patient-relevant knowledge gaps.

Step 4: Identify Patient-Relevant Knowledge Gaps (Survey 2)

Stakeholder organizations disseminated an online survey to patients, caregivers, health care providers and researchers to elucidate unanswered questions on the causes, prevention, diagnosis, and management of the selected skin conditions. We provided lists of previously identified knowledge gaps from Step 3 and asked participants to suggest up to ten additional research questions. We also asked participants to suggest cross-cutting priorities applicable to multiple skin conditions or research areas.

Step 5: Create a Comprehensive Set of Patient-Relevant Knowledge Gaps

The SkIN Canada Steering Committee and Researcher Working Groups (committees of researchers with interest in the areas under study) reviewed the research questions proposed in Step 4, revised the wording for clarity where needed, combined similar questions, and removed those that were out of scope. This process produced an unranked list of patient-relevant knowledge gaps for each of the 9 skin conditions identified in Step 2.

Step 6: Ranking of Priorities (Survey 3)

A final online survey was administered to patients, caregivers, and health care providers, including those who participated in Steps 2 or 4. To mitigate potential competing interests, researchers were excluded from this survey round as they may prioritize their own areas of investigation.
Participants were shown the lists of research questions developed in Step 5 and were asked to rank the 10 most important knowledge gaps for each skin condition relevant to them. For patients and caregivers, this was limited to conditions with which they had lived experience. For health care providers, this included conditions they managed in clinical practice. We then aggregated the rankings using the Ranked-Pair (Tideman) electoral system.5 The top ranked research questions among patients were combined with the top ranked research questions among health care providers to produce a shortlist of up to 21 research priorities for discussion and final ranking at the priority-setting workshops.

Step 7: Workshops to Discuss and Finalize Ranking of Priorities

The final stage of the PSI consisted of a virtual workshop for each skin condition. Each workshop had a balance of patients/caregivers and health care providers, with four to eight patients or caregivers and another four to eight health care providers. Workshops were professionally facilitated by James Lind Alliance certified advisors. Using a standardized workshop framework, participants systematically discussed the short lists generated from Step 6 and then voted individually for their top choices at the end of the workshop. We again applied the Ranked-Pair (Tideman) electoral system to process the individual votes and create the final Top Ten list of priority research questions for each skin condition.

Results

We identified five health care provider and nine patient stakeholder organizations (Step 1; Supplemental Table 1), all of whom agreed to disseminate the surveys to their constituent groups. Overall, 538 individuals participated in at least one survey or workshop: 333 patients/caregivers, 164 health care providers, 24 non-clinician researchers, and 17 clinician-researchers.
Ninety-one health care providers, 16 non-clinician researchers, and seven clinician-researchers participated in Survey 1 to select the priority skin conditions (Supplemental Table 2). Atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and hidradenitis suppurativa were selected as the top three inflammatory skin conditions. Chronic wounds, scars, and burns were selected as priority conditions in the category of wound healing, skin fibrosis and regeneration. Squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and Merkel cell carcinoma were selected as priority skin cancers (Figure 1). Complete results of the ranking process for Survey 1 are presented in Supplemental Table 3.
Figure 1 Flow of participants and research questions through each step of the priority setting initiative.
Potential research questions were identified by our literature review (Step 3; Supplemental Tables 4-6) for atopic dermatitis (N = 35 research questions), psoriasis (N = 41), and hidradenitis suppurativa (N = 29) (Figure 1). These lists were combined with a total of 414 suggested research questions from 98 respondents in Survey 2 (Step 4) for atopic dermatitis, 404 questions from 123 respondents for psoriasis, and 166 questions from 42 respondents for hidradenitis suppurativa (Figure 1). Those research questions were ranked in Survey 3 by 35 patients/caregivers and 25 health care providers for atopic dermatitis, 71 patients/caregivers and 22 health care providers (Step 6) for psoriasis, and 12 patients/caregivers and 24 health care providers for hidradenitis suppurativa. The top ranked research questions from patients and health care providers were combined to create a shortlist of 18 research priorities for each of the three inflammatory skin conditions (Figure 1) (Supplemental Table 7).
As the final step, the Top Ten lists of research priorities were generated from the stakeholder workshops for atopic dermatitis (Table 1), psoriasis (Table 2), and hidradenitis suppurativa (Table 3) (Figure 1). PSI results for the top three skin cancers, chronic wounds, scars, and burns will be published separately.
Table 1 Top 10 Research Priorities for Atopic Dermatitis.
Research priorityRank
Disease heterogeneity 
How can we predict which patients will respond to which treatments for atopic dermatitis and which patients will not respond?2
What is the difference in the prevalence, presentation, and management of atopic dermatitis between patients of different ethnicities and skin tones?3
How can clinically meaningful subtypes of atopic dermatitis be defined based on age at onset; genetics; environmental factors; and clinical features?9
Initiating and exacerbating factors 
What can be done to prevent the development of atopic dermatitis in the first place?1
What causes flares in atopic dermatitis?4
How do the environment, “good” bacteria, and genetics influence atopic dermatitis?6
Does restoring the skin’s protective barrier improve atopic dermatitis outcomes, and if so, how can it be repaired?7
What factors drive immune responses that contribute to atopic dermatitis, and how does managing these factors affect disease outcomes?8
Molecular mechanisms of disease 
What are the molecular pathways involved in the development of atopic dermatitis that can be targeted by novel treatment?5
Comorbidities 
What is the relationship between atopic dermatitis and immune-regulatory conditions (e.g., autoimmune diseases, asthma, allergies)?10
Table 2 Top 10 Research Priorities for Psoriasis
Research priorityRank
Molecular mechanisms of disease 
What molecules and molecular pathways trigger inflammation and lead to different types of psoriasis?1
What are the molecular mechanisms responsible when treatments stop working?4
Do different genes lead to different type and severity of psoriasis?6
What is the role of inflammation produced by nerves (neurogenic inflammation) and growth of new blood vessels (angiogenesis) in the development of psoriasis, and can these processes be targeted by new treatments?8
Treatment 
What are the long-term benefits and risks of oral and biologic psoriasis treatments?3
Why do psoriasis treatments stop working well against psoriasis, and when they stop working well, what’s the best way to regain control of the disease?5
What is the safest and most effective topical treatment for the management of psoriasis?9
Comorbidities 
Does treating psoriasis help improve other health conditions (such as psoriatic arthritis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome and stress), and if so, does treating it early prevent their development entirely?2
Is a person with psoriasis more likely to develop other health conditions (either as a consequence of psoriasis or due to the effect of treatments for psoriasis)? If so, which ones?7
How do changes in female hormones, such as during puberty, pregnancy, miscarriage, menopause and contraceptive use, affect psoriasis and its treatment?10
Table 3 Top 10 Research Priorities for Hidradenitis Suppurativa.
Research priorityRank
Molecular mechanisms of disease 
What is the biological cause of hidradenitis suppurativa?1
What biological factors of hidradenitis suppurativa make it challenging to treat effectively, and how can they be overcome?4
To what extent is hidradenitis suppurativa caused by genetic factors?6
What novel therapeutic approaches can be developed to treat hidradenitis suppurativa more effectively than the current options?9
Treatment 
What are the most effective and safe methods for the management of hidradenitis suppurativa-derived pain?2
What is the best management of an acute flare?3
What is the most effective and safe group of treatments in treating hidradenitis suppurativa? (e.g., antibiotics, hormonal treatments, retinoids, immunosuppressants, metformin, steroids, inflammation modulators, antiseptics, surgery, laser hair removal)?7
Comorbidities 
Is there a relationship between hidradenitis suppurativa and autoimmune disease?5
Is there a relationship between hidradenitis suppurativa and hormonal factors (e.g., puberty, menstruation, polycystic ovary syndrome, pregnancy, post-delivery, menopause)?8
Quality of life 
What is the impact (e.g., physical, psychological, financial, social, quality of life) of hidradenitis suppurativa and its treatments on people living with the disease?10

Discussion

With input from patients, caregivers, health care providers, and researchers, we identified SkIN Canada priority conditions under each of inflammatory, neoplastic and wound healing categories. We completed a national priority setting initiative to identify ranked lists of important patient-relevant knowledge gaps for atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and hidradenitis suppurativa, the conditions that were identified as priorities among inflammatory skin conditions. The Top Ten research gaps for those inflammatory conditions ranged from better understanding the basic pathogenic mechanisms of disease to comorbidities and optimal management strategies.
We used the well-recognized and systematic James Lind Alliance methods to elicit and iterate on input from patients, caregivers and health care providers in addition to researchers. These methods ensure that the research questions selected are important to end-users who will ultimately put the evidence generated into practice. These priorities will now be adopted as the initial priorities of SkIN Canada, guiding its scope of activities and support. They can also be used by researchers, funding agencies, sponsors, and policymakers in Canada and internationally, helping them focus on questions that are important to patients, caregivers, and health care providers. Nevertheless, PSIs are not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive—research on other skin conditions and other research questions is still important and should be encouraged.
Questions related to molecular mechanisms of disease were prominent for the three inflammatory skin conditions, indicating a prominent role for basic and translational researchers. For psoriasis and hidradenitis suppurativa, many questions also focused on treatment strategies. Reflecting a more mature therapeutic field, questions for psoriasis focused on long term safety and optimizing strategies for existing treatments. For hidradenitis suppurativa, current treatment options and the evidence supporting them are more limited, so questions focused on developing new treatments and comparative effectiveness. For atopic dermatitis, questions were more focused on understanding the heterogeneity of different phenotypes and its waxing and waning longitudinal course.
In addition to the direct outputs of the PSI (Top Ten lists of research priorities), this project was an important step in the broader development of SkIN Canada. Part of the research network’s mission is to engage the community of skin disease patients, caregivers, health care providers and researchers to create an interdisciplinary collaboration empowered to conduct impactful research. Engaging with stakeholders, including patient and professional organizations, was crucial to the PSI process and has helped to build relationships and capacity for further engagement as the network progresses.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Drucker has received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (reviewer and Section Editor), American Academy of Dermatology (guidelines writer) and National Eczema Association (grant reviewer).
Cathryn Sibbald has participated in advisory boards for Leo, Miravo, Pfizer, Sanofi, has received honoraria from Leo, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, and was an investigator for a trial with Arcutis.
Dr. Piguet has no personal financial ties with any pharmaceutical company. He has received honoraria for speaker and/or advisory board member roles from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin Co. Ltd, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, and Union Therapeutics. In his role as Department Division Director of Dermatology at the University of Toronto, Dr. Piguet has received departmental support in the form of unrestricted educational grants from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, L’Oréal, NAOS, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and Sanofi in the past 36 months.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Conducted by the Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) and funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

ORCID iDs

References

1. Cowan K., Oliver S. The james lind alliance guidebook. National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2013.
2. Tallon D., Chard J., Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000;355(9220):2037-2040.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5
3. Levelink M., Voigt-Barbarowicz M., Brütt AL. Priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals for health research – A systematic review. Health Expect. 2020;23(5):992-1006.doi:10.1111/hex.13090
4. World Health Organization. A systematic approach for undertaking a research priority-setting exercise: guidance for WHO staff; 2020.
5. Zavist TM., Tideman TN. Complete independence of clones in the ranked pairs rule. Soc Choice Welfare. 1989;6(2):167-173.doi:10.1007/BF00303170

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
Email Article Link
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: February 21, 2023
Issue published: March/April 2023

Keywords

  1. priority setting
  2. atopic dermatitis
  3. psoriasis
  4. hidradenitis suppurativa

Rights and permissions

© The Author(s) 2023.
Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC 4.0)
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Request permissions for this article.
PubMed: 36995350

Authors

Affiliations

Aaron M. Drucker
Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Omer Kleiner
Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Rachael Manion
Patient Research Partner, Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada), Toronto, ON, Canada
Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Canadian Skin Patient Alliance, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Anie Philip
Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Divisions of Plastic Surgery, Dermatology, and Experimental Medicine, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Jan Dutz
Department of Dermatology and Skin Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Kathleen Barnard
Patient Research Partner, Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada), Toronto, ON, Canada
Save Your Skin Foundation, Penticton, British Columbia, Canada
Julie Fradette
Centre de Recherche en Organogénèse Expérimentale de l'Université Laval/LOEX, Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Axe Médecine Régénératrice, Québec, Canada
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
Lucie Germain
Centre de Recherche en Organogénèse Expérimentale de l'Université Laval/LOEX, Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Axe Médecine Régénératrice, Québec, Canada
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
Robert Gniadecki
Division of Dermatology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Ivan Litvinov
Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Sarvesh Logsetty
Departments of Surgery, Psychiatry, and Children’s Health, Max Rady College of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Morris Manolson
Patient Research Partner, Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada), Toronto, ON, Canada
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
P. Régine Mydlarski
Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Vincent Piguet
Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Debbie Ward
Patient Research Partner, Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada), Toronto, ON, Canada
Youwen Zhou
Department of Dermatology and Skin Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
An-Wen Chan
Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
the Skin Investigation Network of Canada Priority Setting Collaborative

Notes

An-Wen Chan, Women’s College Research Institute, Women’s College Hospital, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON M5S1B2, Canada; [email protected]

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery.

View All Journal Metrics

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 1999

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 2

There are no citing articles to show.

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

CDA/ACD members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.


CDA/ACD members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.



Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.