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
  • [31] Teachable moments and missed opportunities for smoking cessation counseling in a hospital emergency department: a mixed-methods study of patient-provider communication
    Mara Buchbinder
    Rachel Wilbur
    Diana Zuskov
    Samuel McLean
    Betsy Sleath
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 14
  • [32] Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study
    Rebecca A Bruni
    Andreas Laupacis
    Wendy Levinson
    Douglas K Martin
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 7
  • [33] Public involvement in the priority setting activities of a wait time management initiative: a qualitative case study
    Bruni, Rebecca A.
    Laupacis, Andreas
    Levinson, Wendy
    Martin, Douglas K.
    [J]. BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2007, 7 (1)
  • [34] The impact of patient involvement in research: a case study of the planning, conduct and dissemination of a clinical, controlled trial
    Skovlund P.C.
    Nielsen B.K.
    Thaysen H.V.
    Schmidt H.
    Finset A.
    Hansen K.A.
    Lomborg K.
    [J]. Research Involvement and Engagement, 6 (1)
  • [35] Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study
    Ennis, Liam
    Wykes, Til
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2013, 203 (05) : 381 - 386
  • [36] What matters most to patients about primary healthcare: mixed-methods patient priority setting exercises within the PREFeR (PRioritiEs For Research) project
    Edwards, Louisa
    Monro, Melody
    Butterfield, Yaron
    Johl, Ravin
    Loftsgard, Kent Cadogan
    Pelletier, Hayley
    McGavin, Colleen
    Lavergne, M. Ruth
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (07):
  • [37] Impact of patient and public (PPI) involvement in the Life After Prostate Cancer Diagnosis (LAPCD) study: a mixed-methods study
    Brett, Jo
    Davey, Zoe
    Matley, Fiona
    Butcher, Hugh
    Keenan, John
    Catton, Darryl
    Watson, Eila
    Wright, Penny
    Gavin, Anna
    Glaser, Adam W.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (11):
  • [38] HOSPITAL PRIORITY SETTING IN A MIXED PUBLIC/PRIVATE HEALTH SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY OF A CHILEAN HOSPITAL
    Valdebenito, Carolina
    Kapiriri, Lydia
    Martin, Douglas K.
    [J]. ACTA BIOETHICA, 2009, 15 (02): : 193 - 201
  • [39] UK paediatric trainee research involvement: A national mixed-methods survey to highlight opportunities and challenges
    Ratnaike, Thiloka
    McDermott, Helen
    McQuaid, Fiona
    Plumb, Lucy
    Wooding, Eva Louise
    Course, Christopher William
    Jackson, Charlotte
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD, 2024, 109 (03) : 256 - 257
  • [40] Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: A mixed methods study
    Mathie, Elspeth
    Wythe, Helena
    Munday, Diane
    Millac, Paul
    Rhodes, Graham
    Roberts, Nick
    Smeeton, Nigel
    Poland, Fiona
    Jones, Julia
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2018, 21 (05) : 899 - 908