» Articles » PMID: 24004532

Development of a New Model to Engage Patients and Clinicians in Setting Research Priorities

Overview
Date 2013 Sep 6
PMID 24004532
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: Equitable involvement of patients and clinicians in setting research and funding priorities is ethically desirable and can improve the quality, relevance and implementation of research. Survey methods used in previous priority setting projects to gather treatment uncertainties may not be sufficient to facilitate responses from patients and their lay carers for some health care topics. We aimed to develop a new model to engage patients and clinicians in setting research priorities relating to life after stroke, and to explore the use of this model within a James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting project.

Methods: We developed a model to facilitate involvement through targeted engagement and assisted involvement (FREE TEA model). We implemented both standard surveys and the FREE TEA model to gather research priorities (treatment uncertainties) from people affected by stroke living in Scotland. We explored and configured the number of treatment uncertainties elicited from different groups by the two approaches.

Results: We gathered 516 treatment uncertainties from stroke survivors, carers and health professionals. We achieved approximately equal numbers of contributions; 281 (54%) from stroke survivors/carers; 235 (46%) from health professionals. For stroke survivors and carers, 98 (35%) treatment uncertainties were elicited from the standard survey and 183 (65%) at FREE TEA face-to-face visits. This contrasted with the health professionals for whom 198 (84%) were elicited from the standard survey and only 37 (16%) from FREE TEA visits.

Conclusions: The FREE TEA model has implications for future priority setting projects and user-involvement relating to populations of people with complex health needs. Our results imply that reliance on standard surveys may result in poor and unrepresentative involvement of patients, thereby favouring the views of health professionals.

Citing Articles

Identifying priorities for future research on reducing and stopping psychiatric medication: results of a James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership.

Boland M, Higgins A, Beecher C, Bracken P, Burn W, Cody A BMJ Open. 2024; 14(11):e088266.

PMID: 39500611 PMC: 11552588. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088266.


Stroke patient and stakeholder engagement (SPSE): concepts, definitions, models, implementation strategies, indicators, and frameworks-a systematic scoping review.

Khankeh H, Guyatt G, Shirozhan S, Roudini J, Rackoll T, Dirnagl U Syst Rev. 2024; 13(1):271.

PMID: 39482702 PMC: 11526530. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02686-y.


The INSIGHT project: reflections on the co-production of a quality recognition programme to showcase excellence in public involvement in health and care research.

Blackburn S, Hine R, Fairbanks S, Parkes P, Murinas D, Meakin A Res Involv Engagem. 2023; 9(1):99.

PMID: 37880805 PMC: 10601214. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00508-4.


Lived experience-centred word clouds may improve research uncertainty gathering in priority setting partnerships.

Mowforth O, Burn L, Khan D, Yang X, Stacpoole S, Gronlund T BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023; 23(1):100.

PMID: 37087419 PMC: 10122197. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-01897-6.


Research priorities for homecare for older people: A UK multi-stakeholder consultation.

ORourke G, Beresford B Health Soc Care Community. 2022; 30(6):e5647-e5660.

PMID: 36134898 PMC: 10087309. DOI: 10.1111/hsc.13991.