TwoCan Associates (United Kingdom)

To identify and prioritise research uncertainties regarding the assessment, management and rehabilitation of patients with problematic hip replacements through a national Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). A national PSP using the James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology. UK. Patients, carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the care of patients with problematic hip replacements. A steering group was established. The James Lind Alliance methodology was followed throughout. A nationwide survey was conducted to collect unanswered questions. These were refined, prioritised through an interim survey and ranked at a final consensus workshop. The initial survey yielded 201 questions, refined to 32. The interim survey had 191 respondents, leading to 19 questions at the final workshop. The top 10 research priorities were agreed on. This PSP identified key research priorities for problematic hip replacements, focusing on diagnosis, pain management, perioperative optimisation and infection. These priorities can inform researchers and funders to improve outcomes for affected patients.

ObjectivesTo form a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to determine research priorities related to the cause, diagnosis, treatment and management of pernicious anaemia (PA) from the perspectives of patients, carers and clinicians.DesignThe PSP conducted two surveys and a workshop to identify the Top 10 questions for research. A first survey identified questions relating to the cause, diagnosis, treatment and management of PA. A literature search checked whether any of these questions had already been answered. A second survey asked respondents to identify and rank their top 10 questions from the list of questions from the first survey. An online workshop used an adapted nominal group technique to agree a final Top 10.ResultsIn the first survey, 933 people submitted 3480 responses that were categorised and summarised to generate a long list of 40 questions. None had been answered by previous research. The combined rankings from the 1068 patients, carers and clinicians who took part in the second survey identified a short list of 16 questions. These were discussed at the final workshop to agree the final Top 10. The number one question was about an accurate and reliable diagnostic test for PA. The other nine questions were about making treatment safe and effective, understanding why people with PA vary in their need for treatment, links to other conditions, and how to encourage clinicians to take PA seriously and provide long-term care.ConclusionsThis JLA PSP enabled patients, carers and clinicians to work together to agree the Top 10 uncertainties relating to the cause, diagnosis, management and treatment of PA. Addressing any of these questions will greatly benefit the end-users of research, the people whose daily lives and decisions will be directly affected by generating high quality research evidence.

In practice, the role of lay members of research ethics committees (RECs) often involves checking the accessibility of written materials, checking that the practical needs of participants have been considered and ensuring that a lay summary of the research will be produced. In this brief report, I argue that all these tasks would be more effectively carried out through a process of patient involvement (PI) in research projects prior to ethical review. Involving patients with direct experience of the topic under investigation brings added value beyond the contributions typically made by lay REC members, who are often not patients themselves. This is because PI tailors the design and conduct of research to the specific interests and concerns of the people who will actually take part in a project and make use of its findings. If a project has PI in its early stages, then a similar input from lay REC members could at best result in duplication of effort and at worst create the potential for conflict. The rationale for lay REC membership will therefore need to change from ‘contributing a patient perspective’ to ‘ensuring transparency and public accountability in REC decisions’. This has implications for addressing more strategic questions about lay REC membership, including who is best recruited to the role and how they should be expected to contribute in practice.