Patient Priorities in Breast Cancer Research - Version 1
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Identifying research through Public and Patient Perspectives and Priorities (4Ps Study)
IRAS ID
189500
Contact name
Cliona Kirwan
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University Hospital of South Manchester
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 11 months, 26 days
Research summary
Historically, clinical research ideas are generated by clinicians or academic researchers based on areas of perceived needs and are judged on scientific merit rather than on relevance and importance of outcomes to end users. More recently, the importance of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in trial design and management has been recognised. The benefits include improved relevance to patients, enabling wide participation and raising awareness of research. Breast Cancer Campaign recently funded a Gap Analysis to determine areas of research need in breast cancer. This was performed by over 100 internationally recognised breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals. Ten major knowledge gaps were identified. However, no PPI was included in this analysis. It is recognised that patients and clinicians have different research priorities, therefore the relevance of PPI to any gap analysis is clear. As a Trainee Research Collaborative it is important that the research we undertake is relevant to the patients that we treat. In particular, we want the research to focus on areas that are considered priority research needs by our patients. The North West Breast Trainee Research Collaborative plans to determine the research priorities of the public in breast cancer care. Using the outcomes of the BCC Gap Analysis as a framework we shall compare the priorities identified by the analysis to those identified by our participants. In addition, we shall explore other participant-perceived priority areas that were not covered in the BCC Analysis. We will correlate these priorities with those of clinicians and non-clinical academic researchers. More importantly we shall use these findings to direct future collaborative research.
REC name
London - Central Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/LO/0162
Date of REC Opinion
14 Jan 2016
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion