Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in the South West of England (PenCLAHRC) is developing a portfolio of clinically relevant, locally tractable and patient-informed research projects through a process involving a wide group of end users at all stages, from the inception of research ideas through to delivery of outputs.
Objectives: This paper describes and evaluates the research prioritisation process being used by PenCLAHRC; a partnership of local National Health Service (NHS) and public health organisations across Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, with the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth.
Methods: PenCLAHRC identifies research questions from its partners, including members of the public. Questions are identified during engagement with service users, clinical teams and organisations around the use of evidence and via the PenCLAHRC website. Questions received are prioritised in a process involving all PenCLAHRC stakeholders (including our Peninsula Patient and Public Involvement group). Prioritisation is based on a set of explicit criteria including importance, local relevance and feasibility. In 2014 we piloted a novel approach consisting of two rounds of electronic voting, before a face-to-face meeting to discuss and rank the prioritised questions.
Results: Seventy-two initial questions were reduced to 50 and then to nine in two electronic rounds of comments and voting. Priority briefings for the nine questions were prepared and were discussed and voted on at a face-to-face meeting in December 2014. The process has been evaluated by stakeholders. Feedback indicates that stakeholders found voting electronically, sharing comments on questions and more than one round of voting valuable. Issues regarding the time available for prioritisation activities and the quality of some identified questions were raised.
Conclusions: Engagement of end users in establishing a research agenda increases its relevance and may promote use of research. With minor changes, future rounds of question prioritisation will build upon the process outlined here.
Objectives: This paper describes and evaluates the research prioritisation process being used by PenCLAHRC; a partnership of local National Health Service (NHS) and public health organisations across Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, with the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth.
Methods: PenCLAHRC identifies research questions from its partners, including members of the public. Questions are identified during engagement with service users, clinical teams and organisations around the use of evidence and via the PenCLAHRC website. Questions received are prioritised in a process involving all PenCLAHRC stakeholders (including our Peninsula Patient and Public Involvement group). Prioritisation is based on a set of explicit criteria including importance, local relevance and feasibility. In 2014 we piloted a novel approach consisting of two rounds of electronic voting, before a face-to-face meeting to discuss and rank the prioritised questions.
Results: Seventy-two initial questions were reduced to 50 and then to nine in two electronic rounds of comments and voting. Priority briefings for the nine questions were prepared and were discussed and voted on at a face-to-face meeting in December 2014. The process has been evaluated by stakeholders. Feedback indicates that stakeholders found voting electronically, sharing comments on questions and more than one round of voting valuable. Issues regarding the time available for prioritisation activities and the quality of some identified questions were raised.
Conclusions: Engagement of end users in establishing a research agenda increases its relevance and may promote use of research. With minor changes, future rounds of question prioritisation will build upon the process outlined here.