Setting the research agenda for living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness: reflections on a research prioritisation exercise

Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.

RESULTS

We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.

International research priority setting exercises in stroke: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Agreeing on priority topics for stroke research can help make best use of limited funding, people, and time. Formal priority-setting exercises collate stakeholders' opinions to reach consensus on the most important research questions. Several stroke research priority setting exercises have been published. Exploring commonalities and differences between these exercises could bring a better understanding of priority research topics.

AIM

We collated and compared published stroke research priority setting exercises across international healthcare systems.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

Multidisciplinary, electronic literature databases were searched from 2000 to 2021, using a validated search syntax. Inclusion criteria were: full article; stroke focus (any subtype); prioritization method described; and lists priorities for research. Priorities were extracted, coded, and assigned to categories using thematic analysis. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice and the Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research checklists were used to assess methodological and reporting quality respectively. From 623 titles assessed, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion, including 2410 participants and describing 165 priorities. The majority of priority setting exercises were conducted in high-income countries (86%, n = 12 articles), published between 2011 and 2021 (64%, n = 9), and included views of healthcare professionals (57%, n = 8), and stroke survivors (50%, n = 7). Caregivers (n = 3, 21%) were under-represented. The James Lind Alliance priority setting method was most commonly used (50%, n = 7). Priorities were grouped into 10 thematic categories. Rehabilitation and follow-up was the most common priority theme (15%, n = 25 priorities), followed by psychological recovery (14%, n = 23), pathology (14%, n = 23), and caregivers and support (14%, n = 23). Priorities differed by year and case-mix (stakeholder group and demographics) of respondents. No article was judged high quality for all aspects of method or reporting. Common limitations were around inclusiveness and evaluation of the exercise.

CONCLUSION

Stroke research priorities are dynamic and context-specific. However, there was a common theme of prioritizing research that considered life after stroke. Future priority settings should consider the inclusion of nonindustrialized countries and stroke survivors with a range of impairments.

Comparing international dementia research priorities-Systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Research priority setting aims to collate stakeholder opinion to determine the most pressing research questions. Priority setting exercises influence decisions around research funding, development and policy. We compared published dementia research priority setting exercises from international healthcare systems.

METHODS

Four multidisciplinary, international, electronic databases were searched for relevant studies (2010 until 2021). Priorities were extracted, coded and assigned to categories using thematic analysis. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice (9CTGP) and the Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) checklists were used to assess methodological and reporting quality respectively.

RESULTS

From 265 titles, 10 priority setting exercises (1179 participants, 147 priorities) were included. Studies spanned four continents and the majority included people living with dementia and their care-givers in the priority setting process (68%). Only one paper met all the best practice indicators. Issues around inclusiveness, implementation and evaluation of the priorities were apparent in nine papers. We categorised priorities under eight themes: caregivers (25%, n = 37), support (24%, n = 35), awareness and education (16%, n = 24), drugs and interventions (14%, n = 21), diagnosis (8%, n = 12), pathology (6%, n = 9), research design (5%, n = 7), and prevention (1%, n = 2). Priorities varied by geographical region, with awareness and education of higher priority in low-middle income countries, compared to caregivers and support in high income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Key priorities were identified with some commonality around themes considered of greatest importance. There is scope to improve the process and reporting of priority setting. Priorities differed according to contextual factors and so, priorities specific to one healthcare setting may not be applicable to others.

"Could you give us an idea on what we are all doing here?" the Patient Voice in Cancer Research (PVCR) starting the journey of involvement in Ireland

BACKGROUND

Involving patients and their carers in research has become more common, as funders demand evidence of involvement. The 'Patient Voice in Cancer Research' (PVCR) is an initiative led by University College Dublin (UCD) in Ireland. It encourages and enables people affected by cancer, and their families to become involved in shaping and informing the future of cancer research across the island of Ireland. Its aim is to identify the questions and needs that matter most to (i) people living with a cancer diagnosis, and (ii) those most likely to improve the relevance of cancer research. The initiative commenced in April 2016.

METHODS

This paper presents a reflective case study of our journey thus far. We outline three key stages of the initiative and share what we have learnt. At the core of PVCR, is a focus on building long-term relationships.

RESULTS

We have developed over time an inclusive initiative that is built on trust and respect for everyone's contributions. This work is grounded on collegiality, mixed with a good sense of humour and friendship.

CONCLUSION

The development of PVCR has taken time and investment. The benefits and impact of undertaking this work have been immensely rewarding and now require significant focus as we enhance cancer research across the island of Ireland.