TY - JOUR
T1 - A national patient and public colorectal research agenda
T2 - integration of consumer perspectives in bowel disease through early consultation
AU - McNair, A. G K
AU - Heywood, N.
AU - Tiernan, J.
AU - Verjee, A.
AU - Bach, S. P.
AU - Fearnhead, N. S.
AU - Arnott, Robert
AU - Ashdown-Phillips, Steven
AU - Bason, Nick
AU - Challand, Christopher
AU - Demick, Anne
AU - Fearnhead, Nicola
AU - Gardner, Richard
AU - Llewellyn, Greg
AU - Lopes de Azevedo Gilbert, Robert
AU - Harji, Deena
AU - Morgan, Dewi
AU - Morton, Dion
AU - Northover, John
AU - Pipe, Jenny
AU - Scales, Joshua
AU - Senapati, Asha
AU - Speake, Doug
AU - Vimalachandran, Dale
AU - Walter, Catherine
AU - Wheeler, James
AU - ORACLE Collaboration
PY - 2017/1/5
Y1 - 2017/1/5
N2 - Aim: There is a recognized need to include the views of patients and the public in prioritizing health research. This study aimed: (i) to explore patients’ views on colorectal research; and (ii) to prioritize research topics with patients and the public. Method: In phase 1, 12 charitable organizations and patient groups with an interest in bowel disease were invited to attend a consultation exercise. Participants were briefed on 25 colorectal research topics prioritized by members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Focus groups were conducted and discussions were recorded with field notes. Analysis was conducted using principles of thematic analysis. In phase 2, a free public consultation was undertaken. Participants were recruited from newspaper advertisements, were briefed on the same research topics and were asked to rate the importance of each on a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to rank the topics. Univariable linear regression compared recorded demographic details with mean topic scores. Results: Focus groups were attended by 12 patients who highlighted the importance of patient-centred information for trial recruitment and when selecting outcome measures. Some 360 people attended the public consultation, of whom 277 (77%) were recruited. Participants rated ‘What is the best way to treat early cancer in the back passage?’ highest, with 227 (85%) scoring it 4 or 5. There was no correlation between participant demographics and mean topic scores. Conclusion: The present study prioritized a colorectal research agenda with the input of patients and the public. Further research is required to translate this agenda into real improvements in patient care.
AB - Aim: There is a recognized need to include the views of patients and the public in prioritizing health research. This study aimed: (i) to explore patients’ views on colorectal research; and (ii) to prioritize research topics with patients and the public. Method: In phase 1, 12 charitable organizations and patient groups with an interest in bowel disease were invited to attend a consultation exercise. Participants were briefed on 25 colorectal research topics prioritized by members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Focus groups were conducted and discussions were recorded with field notes. Analysis was conducted using principles of thematic analysis. In phase 2, a free public consultation was undertaken. Participants were recruited from newspaper advertisements, were briefed on the same research topics and were asked to rate the importance of each on a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to rank the topics. Univariable linear regression compared recorded demographic details with mean topic scores. Results: Focus groups were attended by 12 patients who highlighted the importance of patient-centred information for trial recruitment and when selecting outcome measures. Some 360 people attended the public consultation, of whom 277 (77%) were recruited. Participants rated ‘What is the best way to treat early cancer in the back passage?’ highest, with 227 (85%) scoring it 4 or 5. There was no correlation between participant demographics and mean topic scores. Conclusion: The present study prioritized a colorectal research agenda with the input of patients and the public. Further research is required to translate this agenda into real improvements in patient care.
KW - bowel disease
KW - outcome selection
KW - Patient and public involvement
KW - priority setting partnership
KW - research methodology
KW - research priorities
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008385118&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/codi.13564
DO - 10.1111/codi.13564
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85008385118
SN - 1462-8910
VL - 19
SP - O75-O85
JO - Colorectal Disease
JF - Colorectal Disease
IS - 1
ER -