Public Priorities for Osteoporosis and Fracture Research: Results from a Focus Group Study

Hawarden et al. (2020) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

osteoporosis

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Europe - United Kingdom

Why was it conducted at all?

Patients and the public must be involved in setting research agendas to ensure relevant and impactful questions are prioritised. This study aimed to understand what people living with osteoporosis and fragility fractures felt was important to research, to inform the content of a national survey on research priorities in this area.

What was the objective?

to identify important areas for future osteoporosis research

What was the outcome?

a list of 12 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

October 2015

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

focus group

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: 4 focus groups: participants were asked to discuss questions about participants' experience of osteoporosis, including diagnosis, management and the influence of the disease upon their lives, what people thought was important in their management and what was missing or could be improved in relation to their care, discussion was followed by a prioritization exercise: participants were asked to note on Post-its the topic(s) that were most important to them. Step 2: data processing: thematic analysis

Which stakeholders took part?

Members of the public with experience of osteoporosis or fragility fracture: 19 participants reported having a diagnosis of osteoporosis and 14 reported sustaining a previous fragility fracture. 23 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Focus group participants were recruited from three sources. First, 20 individuals attending a face-to-face patient education meeting hosted by the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Second, mailed invitations were posted to a regional mailing list of 85 supporters of the NOS in north Staffordshire. Third, participants (aged 50 and over with a recent fragility fracture) from an existing research cohort in Oxford, who had consented to contact about other research studies, were invited to participate.

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.