Consensus in Bladder Cancer Research Priorities Between Patients and Healthcare Professionals Using a Four-Stage Modified Delphi Method
For which topic were research priorities identified?
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
Europe - United Kingdom
Why was it conducted at all?
Outcomes in bladder cancer (BC) have not improved over the last 25 years, and there are many unanswered research questions. Patient and public involvement (PPI) has not yet been explored to prioritise the relatively small amount of funding that BC attracts.
What was the objective?
to identify and prioritize bladder cancer research questions, in collaboration with PPI representatives and healthcare professionals to ensure that future funding can be invested in the most strategic way
What was the outcome?
a ranking list of 10 research questions
How long did the research prioritization take?
No information provided.
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
Delphi; focus group; meeting
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: literature review: review identified 41 unanswered questions. Step 2: focus groups: discussing 41 questions, confirming uncertainty. Step 3: Delphi: 2-round Delphi survey, the 41 unanswered research questions were translated into both lay and clinical versions, results of the two Delphi rounds were compared to identify the top 10 research questions from patients and HCPs, a comparison of the list of top 10 research questions was made, it was concluded that 70% of the questions from both stakeholder groups were concordant. Step 4: consensus meeting: the 10 research questions concordant between both stakeholder groups and with higher scores were taken to a consensus meeting, discussion and final ranking of the top 10 research priorities
Which stakeholders took part?
Focus group: 10 patients distributed between high- and low-risk BC, 6 HCPs (2 medical oncologists, 1 radiation oncologist, 1 urology nurse specialist, and 2 urological surgeons). Delphi participants: 68 patients and 48 HCPs in round 1, 30 patients and 32 HCPs in round 2. Consensus meeting: 7 participants: 2 medical oncologists, 1 radiation oncologist, 1 urology nurse specialist, 2 urological surgeons, and 1 patient advocate.
How were stakeholders recruited?
No information provided.
Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?
Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.