Missed opportunities for impact in patient and carer involvement: A mixed methods case study of research priority setting

被引:11
|
作者
Snow R. [1 ]
Crocker J.C. [1 ,2 ]
Crowe S. [3 ]
机构
[1] Health Experiences Institute, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford
[2] NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford
[3] Crowe Associates Ltd, Oxford
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Impact; Patient and carer involvement; Patient involvement; PPI; Priority setting; Research agenda; Research priorities; Service-user involvement;
D O I
10.1186/s40900-015-0007-6
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background Patients and carers are increasingly involved in deciding on topics for medical research. However, so far, it has been difficult to gain an accurate picture of the impact of such involvement because of poor reporting and evaluation in published studies to date. This study aimed to explore how a partnership of patients, carers, healthcare professionals and organisations identified questions for future research and why patients and carers had a limited impact on this process. Methods In the first stage of the partnership process, relevant service users and providers (including patients, carers, healthcare professionals and voluntary organisations) were invited to submit suggested research questions about the treatment of type 1 diabetes, via a national online and paper survey. The partnership followed formal protocols that defined a researchable question. This meant that many respondents’ suggested research questions were rejected at the start of the process. We analysed survey submissions to find out which groups of respondents were most likely to have their suggestions rejected and what these suggestions were about. Results Five hundred eighty-three respondents submitted 1143 suggested research questions, of which 249 (21.8 %) were rejected at the first stage. Respondents with lived experience of this long-term condition (patients and carers) were more likely than those without lived experience to submit a research question that would be rejected (35.6 vs. 16.5 %; p < 0.0005). Among the rejected questions submitted by patients and carers, there were several key themes: questions about cure, cause and prevention, understanding the disease, healthcare policy and economics. Conclusions In this case study, early decisions about what constituted a researchable question restricted patients’ and carers’ contributions to priority setting. When discussions about a project’s remit take place before service users are involved, researchers risk distorting the potential impact of involvement. Impact assessments should consider not only the differences patients and carers make to research but also the differences they could have made in the absence of systemic barriers. We recommend that initiatives aimed at involving patients and carers in identifying research questions involve them as early as possible, including in decisions about how and why suggested research questions are selected or rejected. © 2015 Snow et al.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluating the impact of patient and carer involvement in suicide and self-harm research: A mixed-methods, longitudinal study protocol
    Littlewood, Donna L.
    Quinlivan, Leah
    Steeg, Sarah
    Bennett, Carole
    Bickley, Harriet
    Rodway, Cathryn
    Webb, Roger T.
    Kapur, Navneet
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2021, 24 : 47 - 53
  • [2] The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: A mixed methods study
    Blackburn S.
    McLachlan S.
    Jowett S.
    Kinghorn P.
    Gill P.
    Higginbottom A.
    Rhodes C.
    Stevenson F.
    Jinks C.
    [J]. Research Involvement and Engagement, 4 (1)
  • [3] Missed Opportunities in the Outpatient Pediatric Setting to Support Breastfeeding: Results From a Mixed-Methods Study
    Ramos, Mary M.
    Sebastian, Rachel A.
    Sebesta, Emilie
    McConnell, Adriennee E.
    McKinney, Courtney R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC HEALTH CARE, 2019, 33 (01) : 64 - 71
  • [4] Priority setting in higher education research using a mixed methods approach
    Choi, Tammie
    Palermo, Claire
    Sarkar, Mahbub
    Whitton, Joy
    Rees, Charlotte
    Clemans, Allie
    [J]. HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 2023, 42 (04) : 816 - 830
  • [5] Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study
    Barber, Rosemary
    Boote, Jonathan D.
    Parry, Glenys D.
    Cooper, Cindy L.
    Yeeles, Philippa
    Cook, Sarah
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2012, 15 (03) : 229 - 241
  • [6] The involvement of patient organisations in rare disease research: a mixed methods study in Australia
    Pinto, Deirdre
    Martin, Dominique
    Chenhall, Richard
    [J]. ORPHANET JOURNAL OF RARE DISEASES, 2016, 11
  • [7] The involvement of patient organisations in rare disease research: a mixed methods study in Australia
    Deirdre Pinto
    Dominique Martin
    Richard Chenhall
    [J]. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 11
  • [8] Exploring the Impact of Patient and Public Involvement in a Cancer Research Setting
    Thompson, Jill
    Bissell, Paul
    Cooper, Cindy L.
    Armitage, Chris J.
    Barber, Rosemary
    [J]. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2014, 24 (01) : 46 - 54
  • [9] Public Involvement in Setting a National Research AgendaA Mixed Methods Evaluation
    Sandy Oliver
    David G. Armes
    Gill Gyte
    [J]. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2009, 2 : 179 - 190
  • [10] Public Involvement in Setting a National Research Agenda A Mixed Methods Evaluation
    Oliver, Sandy
    Armes, David G.
    Gyte, Gill
    [J]. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2009, 2 (03): : 179 - 190