Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
This abstract is based on the presumption that it is important that research on the effects of treatments do not overlook the shared interests of patients, carers and clinicians, otherwise it is probable that many areas of potentially important research will be neglected. Using a case study, the abstract will examine the system of Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) developed by the UK James Lind Alliance (JLA) in partnership with research institutions to ensure that programmes focus on the priorities set in partnership with patients and clinicians.
Objectives:
1. To outline the UK system of PSPs established to ensure health care systematic research is focused on an agreed set of research objectives, taking account of the views of all relevant parties;
2. To summarise the benefits and challenges of the PSP process, using the Cellulitis PSP as a case study;
3. To assess briefly with participants the extent to which the UK system might be adapted for other countries/cultures.
Methods:
1. A brief introduction to the process adopted by PSPs and increasing use of PSPs by health research institutions;
2. Using a case study, explain how the process works in practice;
3. A brief review of how the outcomes of the PSP are informing research in practice;
4. A brief guided discussion on how a PSP system might work in the countries/cultures represented at the presentation.
Results:
The presentation will include an overview of how the process works, using the outcomes from the Cellulitis PSP as a practical example, including an assessment of the period over which the PSP was active and the resources involved. It will seek to quantify the benefits that have accrued from the PSP.
Conclusions:
The outcomes of the PSP are now being used to guide a number of research projects, at the Centre for Evidence Based Dermatology (CEBD), University of Nottingham, which was the lead body for the Cellulitis PSP, and other institutions. The PSP process meets the requirements of priority setting in the UK. Are these benefits transferable to other environments?
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
The submission relates to abstract topic categories consumer involvement and priority setting. The membership of the PSP steering group included four patient representatives (including the author), alongside six clinicians and four support staff from JLA/CEBD. At the final stage, the number of patients was increased, to ensure an even wider representation of consumer views. The attachment offers more detail of the scope of the abstract and the author's role in the PSP.
This abstract is based on the presumption that it is important that research on the effects of treatments do not overlook the shared interests of patients, carers and clinicians, otherwise it is probable that many areas of potentially important research will be neglected. Using a case study, the abstract will examine the system of Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) developed by the UK James Lind Alliance (JLA) in partnership with research institutions to ensure that programmes focus on the priorities set in partnership with patients and clinicians.
Objectives:
1. To outline the UK system of PSPs established to ensure health care systematic research is focused on an agreed set of research objectives, taking account of the views of all relevant parties;
2. To summarise the benefits and challenges of the PSP process, using the Cellulitis PSP as a case study;
3. To assess briefly with participants the extent to which the UK system might be adapted for other countries/cultures.
Methods:
1. A brief introduction to the process adopted by PSPs and increasing use of PSPs by health research institutions;
2. Using a case study, explain how the process works in practice;
3. A brief review of how the outcomes of the PSP are informing research in practice;
4. A brief guided discussion on how a PSP system might work in the countries/cultures represented at the presentation.
Results:
The presentation will include an overview of how the process works, using the outcomes from the Cellulitis PSP as a practical example, including an assessment of the period over which the PSP was active and the resources involved. It will seek to quantify the benefits that have accrued from the PSP.
Conclusions:
The outcomes of the PSP are now being used to guide a number of research projects, at the Centre for Evidence Based Dermatology (CEBD), University of Nottingham, which was the lead body for the Cellulitis PSP, and other institutions. The PSP process meets the requirements of priority setting in the UK. Are these benefits transferable to other environments?
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
The submission relates to abstract topic categories consumer involvement and priority setting. The membership of the PSP steering group included four patient representatives (including the author), alongside six clinicians and four support staff from JLA/CEBD. At the final stage, the number of patients was increased, to ensure an even wider representation of consumer views. The attachment offers more detail of the scope of the abstract and the author's role in the PSP.