Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2011 Dec;14(4):439-48.
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00648.x. Epub 2010 Dec 22.

Patients' and clinicians' research priorities

Affiliations
Review

Patients' and clinicians' research priorities

Ruth J Stewart et al. Health Expect. 2011 Dec.

Abstract

Background: If research addresses the questions of relevance to patients and clinicians, decision-makers will be better equipped to design and deliver health services which meet their needs. To this end, a number of initiatives have engaged patients and clinicians in setting research agendas. This paper aimed to scope the research literature addressing such efforts.

Methods: A systematic search strategy combined electronic searches of bibliographic databases with handsearching and contacting key authors. Two researchers, initially working independently, described the relevant reports.

Findings: Over 250 studies addressed patients' or clinicians' priorities for research and outcomes for assessment. This literature described different routes for patients and clinicians to contribute to research agendas. Two-thirds of the studies addressing patients' or clinicians' research questions were applicable across health care, with the remainder focussed on specific health conditions. The 27 formal studies of patient involvement revealed a literature that has grown in the last decade. Although only nine studies engaged patients and clinicians in identifying research questions together, they show that methods have advanced over time, with all of them engaging participants directly and repeatedly in facilitated debate and most employing formal decision-making procedures.

Conclusion: A sizeable literature is available to inform priorities for research and the methods for setting research agendas with patients and clinicians. We recommend that research funders and researchers draw on this literature to provide relevant research for health service decision-makers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart showing how we identified the 96 reports in which clinicians and/or patients collaborated in identifying full research questions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
An overview of the health topics included in the 96 studies in which research questions are identified.

References

    1. Oliver S, Clarke‐Jones L, Rees R et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence‐based approach. Health Technology Assessment, 2004; 8: 1–148. - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland from 10th ‐11th April 2008.
    1. Oliver S. The progress of lay involvement in the NHS research and development programme. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2009; 2: 273–280. - PubMed
    1. Department of Health . Best Research for Best Health. Research and Development Directorate, London: Department of Health, 2006.
    1. Medical Research Council . Clinical Trials for Tomorrow: An MRC review of randomised control trials. London: MRC, 2003.

Publication types