The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study

J Corner, D Wright, J Hopkinson, Y Gunaratnam, J W McDonald, C Foster, J Corner, D Wright, J Hopkinson, Y Gunaratnam, J W McDonald, C Foster

Abstract

Members of the public are increasingly consulted over health care and research priorities. Patient involvement in determining cancer research priorities, however, has remained underdeveloped. This paper presents the findings of the first consultation to be conducted with UK cancer patients concerning research priorities. The study adopted a participatory approach using a collaborative model that sought joint ownership of the study with people affected by cancer. An exploratory, qualitative approach was used. Consultation groups were the main method, combining focus group and nominal group techniques. Seventeen groups were held with a total of 105 patients broadly representative of the UK cancer population. Fifteen areas for research were identified. Top priority areas included the impact cancer has on life, how to live with cancer and related support issues; risk factors and causes of cancer; early detection and prevention. Although biological and treatment related aspects of science were identified as important, patients rated the management of practical, social and emotional issues as a higher priority. There is a mismatch between the research priorities identified by participants and the current UK research portfolio. Current research activity should be broadened to reflect the priorities of people affected by the disease.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Process of identifying research priorities in consultation groups.

References

    1. Aspinal F, Hughes R, Dunckley M, Addington-Hall J (2006) What is important to measure in the last months and weeks of life. A modified nominal group study. Int J Nurs Stud 43: 393–403
    1. Campbell SM, Cantrill JA (2001) Consensus methods in prescribing research. J Clin Pharm Ther 26: 5–14
    1. Corner J, Wright D (2004) Involving people affected by cancer in setting priorities for cancer research. Report to Macmillan Cancer Relief 1–44
    1. Department of Health (2004) Choosing Health: Making Healthy Choices Easier. Department of Health: London
    1. Department of Health (2005) Research Governance Framework: 2nd edn., Department of Health: London
    1. Department of Health (2006) Our health, our care, our say. Department of Health: London
    1. Duncan EAS, Munro K, Nicol MM (2003) Research priorities in forensic occupational therapy. Br J Occupa Ther 66: 55–64
    1. Epstein S (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. University of California Press: Berkeley
    1. Epstein S (1997) AIDS activism and the retreat from ‘genocide’ frame. Soc Identities 3: 415–478
    1. Glass N (2002) UK charity to involve public in decision making for cancer research priorities. Lancet 360: 1487.
    1. Gray RE, Fitch M, Davis C, Phillips C (2000) Challenges of participatory research: reflections on a study with breast cancer self-help groups. Health Expect 2: 243–252
    1. Hammersley M, Atkinson P (1989) The process of analysis. In Ethnography: Principles in Practice Hammersley M, Atkinson P (eds). 2nd edn, pp 205–238. London: Routledge
    1. Hanley B, Bradburn J, Barnes M, Evans C, Goodare H, Kelson M, Kent A, Oliver S, Thomas S, Wallcraft J (2003) Involving the Public in NHS, Public Health, and Social Care Research: Briefing Notes for Researchers 2nd edn, Eastleigh: INVOLVE
    1. Jenks S (1997) The public applauds cancer research but not how research priorities are set. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 350–351
    1. Krueger RA (1994) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. London: Sage
    1. Liberati A (1997) Consumer participation in research and health care. BMJ 315: 499.
    1. Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P (2003) On being a good listener: setting priorities for Applied Health Services Research. Milbank Quarterly 81: 363–388
    1. Martin B (1980) The goal of self-managed science: implications for action. Radical Sci J 10: 3–16
    1. Maxwell J, Rosell S, Forest P-G (2003) Giving citizens a voice in healthcare policy in Canada. BMJ 326: 1031–1033
    1. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J, Marteau T (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess 2
    1. National Cancer Research Institute (2004) Strategic Plan 2003–2005. NCRI: London
    1. Newman PA (2006) Towards a science of community engagement. Lancet 367: 302.
    1. Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, Gyte G, Oakley A, Stein K (2004) Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess 8: 1–148
    1. Parkes M, Panelli R (2001) Integrating catchment ecosystems and community health: the value of participatory action research. Ecosystem Health 7: 85–106
    1. Porter R (1997) Review: impure science: AIDS activism and the politics of knowledge. BMJ 314: 385
    1. Reason P, Bradbury H (2001) Introduction: inquiry and participation in search of a world worth of human aspiration. In: Handbook of Action Research: Participation, Inquiry and Practice Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) pp 1–14. London: Sage
    1. Stewart J (1995) Models of priority-setting for public sector research. Res Policy 24: 115–126
    1. Strauss AL (1987) Codes and coding. In: Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists Strauss AL (ed) pp 55–81. Cambridge University Press: New York
    1. Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P (2000) Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 355: 2037–2040
    1. Telford R, Boote JD, Cooper CL (2004) What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expect 7: 209–220
    1. Tierney AJ (1998) Nursing Research in Europe. Intern Nurs Rev 45: 15–19
    1. Wellings J, Branigan P, Mitchell K (2000) Discomfort, discord and discontinuity as data: using focus groups to research sensitive topics. Culture Health Sexuality 2: 255–267
    1. Wright D, Corner J, Hopkinson J, Foster C (2006) Listening to the views of people affected by cancer about cancer research: an example of participatory research in setting the cancer research agenda. Health Expect 9: 3–12

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться