Does funded research reflect the priorities of people living with type 1 diabetes? A secondary analysis of research questions
Does funded research reflect the priorities of people living with type 1 diabetes? A secondary analysis of research questions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016540
复制
发表时间：
2017-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Britten, Nicky
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boddy, Kate;Cowan, Katherine;Britten, Nicky
本研究探讨1型糖尿病资助研究与1型糖尿病患者及其照护者研究议程之间的差异和趋同。设计、方法、设置对两个英国组织的现有数据进行了二次分析，这两个组织定期与患者和护理人员合作，以确定研究重点。糖尿病患者的研究思路通过两种方式确定：在15个研究问题生成研讨会中，涉及大约100名患者和护理人员，以及在James Lind联盟1型糖尿病优先设置伙伴关系中，涉及大约580名患者，护理人员和临床医生（临床医生问题提交被排除在分析之外）。共从患者和护理人员那里收集了859个单独的研究问题。糖尿病研究资助活动是通过广泛的在线搜索确定的，总共提供了172个相关的研究项目进行分析。结果对数据进行了主题分析，确定了研究的优先领域，并在患者和资助研究议程之间进行了比较。这项研究的总体发现是，两种研究议程之间存在实质性的趋同，同时也存在一些重要的分歧。存在分歧的主要领域是提供护理、注射问题、社会心理影响和妇女健康。我们还展示了一个表面上趋同的优先级如何在患者产生和资助的研究议程之间的重点上存在显著差异。我们提供了一个资助的研究议程与一个直接来自1型糖尿病患者的研究议程的比较，而没有研究人员最初的框架。这提供了一个难得的机会来探索研究的最终用户的观点，并将它们与由研究人员和研究组织确定的已实现的研究进行比较。
Objectives This study explored the divergence and convergence between funded research about type 1 diabetes and the research agenda of people living with the condition and their carers.Design, method, setting A secondary analysis was undertaken of existing data from two UK organisations who regularly work with patients and carers to identify research priorities. The research ideas of people with diabetes were identified in two ways: in 15 research question generation workshops involving approximately 100 patients and carers, and in a James Lind Alliance Type 1 Diabetes Priority Setting Partnership with approximately 580 patients, carers and clinicians (clinician question submissions were excluded from analysis). A total of 859 individual research questions were collected from patients and carers. Diabetes research funding activity was identified through extensive online searches which provided a total of 172 relevant research projects for analysis.Results The data were thematically analysed and areas of priority for research identified and compared between the patient and funded research agendas. The overall finding of this study is that there is substantial convergence between the two research agendas, alongside some important areas of divergence. The key areas of divergence were found in care delivery, injection issues, psychosocial impacts and women's health. We also demonstrate how an apparently convergent priority can host significant differences in emphasis between patient-generated and funded research agendas.Conclusions We offer a comparison of a funded research agenda with one that has been derived directly from people with type 1 diabetes without initial framing by researchers. This provided a rare opportunity to explore the viewpoints of the end-users of research and compare them to realised research as determined by researchers and research organisations.