What are Patients' Priorities for Palliative Care Research? Focus Group Study
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?
Both the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Strategic Planning Group on Supportive and Palliative Care and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidance for Supportive and Palliative Care have emphasized the value of user involvement in developing innovative lines of research. User involvement is also important to funding bodies when funding research. The ‘Research for Patient Benefit Programme' (a national initiative to improve research within the National Health Service) has stated that proposals where patients and the public have been involved will be particularly welcome. This makes it vital that research is focused on the key priorities - it is essential to discover patients' priorities.
What was the objective?
to elucidate the research priorities of palliative care patients
What was the outcome?
a list of 5 research topics
How long did the research prioritization take?
No information provided.
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: 6 focus groups with overall 19 patients: 3 groups with day therapy (11 patients) and 3 with in-patients (8 patients). Step 2: data processing: thematic analysis
Which stakeholders took part?
Day therapy and hospice in-patients with cancer with an estimated prognosis of 6 months or less. 19 participants.
How were stakeholders recruited?
Participants were recruited via the Arthur Rank House, a specialist palliative care unit in Cambridge. Hospice in-patients and day therapy patients, 18 years or older, English speakers, with cancer and a prognosis of 6 months or less (estimated by hospice staff ) were identified and approached concerning the study.
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.