Fecal incontinence (FI) is the involuntary loss of feces and can affect up to 17 percent of community dwelling individuals, rising to 40 percent of older people in residential care homes. There is limited up-to-date evidence which formally set research priorities addressing FI. This project aimed to identify research topics of highest importance to key FI stakeholders.

An evidence gap map was produced incorporating three streams of evidence coded against predefined topic domains. The evidence streams included: emerging evidence identified through horizon scanning; existing evidence identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases; and key FI stakeholder insights collected through an international survey. Findings were presented as a visual map to facilitate knowledge exchange during an online workshop with a purposeful sample of multidisciplinary stakeholders. The identified gaps in research were explored to see whether they were deemed representative of unmet needs, and as such, areas of priority to key FI stakeholders. Ideation techniques and group discussions were used to refine and rank priority areas.

Overall, there was a mismatch between the existing and emerging evidence, and the priorities of key FI stakeholders. New pharmaceutical and medical technology innovations were limited. Eight percent of early-stage trials identified were concerned with the use of repurposed drugs. Within the existing evidence base, individual bowel management strategies and treatments were examined, however, key FI stakeholders desired interventions to improve patient education and the psychological aspects of living with FI. The five priority topics identified in order of importance are as follows: psychological support; lifestyle interventions; long-term effects; education; and constipation.

The robust methodology used to identify priority topics were successful in identifying broad and wide-ranging areas of importance to key stakeholders. The evidence gap map was a useful visual tool to facilitate knowledge exchange and highlight where research efforts have been focused historically, identifying a mismatch between the existing evidence base and what stakeholders consider important.