Abstract: Aim: To assess whether the outputs from a research prioritisation partnership (run by the James Lind Alliance) had an influence on the research agenda. The research topic was urinary incontinence.
Method: One year after the top ten research questions were publicised, the researchers looked for new research or funding applications relating to the prioritised topics. They reviewed research databases, consulted funding organisations and contacted some of the relevant research community, as well as the organisations that had taken part in the original partnership.
Findings/ recommendations: The authors were not sure they were able to capture information about all of the relevant research applications because of academic confidentiality. However, in spite of these difficulties they found that the partnership had catalysed considerable new research activity. Five studies were found to have been funded and several more were in development, addressing six of the ten priorities. Other topics were being considered as a theme for a call for commissioned research by a UK funding agency. Only one of the ten topics had no related research activity.
The authors commented that it would be valuable to find ways for international partnerships of patients and clinicians to be able to influence the international research agenda.
External link: The following links will take you to information on this entry on an external website. INVOLVE is not responsible for the content or the reliability of the external websites. Click here
Related entry: none currently available
Categories: health Identifying topics, prioritising and commissioning impact on funding/commissioning impact of public involvement journal article
Date Entered: 2015/04/27
Date Edited: 2015/04/27