Breast cancer research gaps: a questionnaire-based study to determine overall priorities and compare the priorities of patients, the public, clinicians and scientists
Rebecca Louise Wilson,George Boundouki,Richard J Jackson,Rajiv V Dave,James R Harvey,Julie Wray,Laura Ballance,Julia R Henderson,Paula Duxbury,Ibrahim Ibrahim,Vivienne Appanah,Cliona C Kirwan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084573
IF: 3.006
2024-09-01
BMJ Open
Abstract:Objective This study aims to prioritise the themes identified from the three gap analyses performed by a combination of scientists, clinicians, patients and members of the public to determine areas in breast cancer care where research is lacking. We also aimed to compare the priorities of areas of agreed research need between patients, the public, clinicians and scientists. Design A cross-section of patients, public, clinicians and scientists completed a prioritisation exercise to rank the identified themes where research is lacking in breast cancer care. Participants Patients, clinicians and scientists who have experienced, managed or worked in the field of breast cancer and members of the public. Methods The research areas identified in the Breast Cancer Campaign, Association of Breast Surgery and North West Breast Research Collaborative gap analyses were outlined as 22 themes in lay terminology. Patients, members of the public, clinicians and scientists were invited to complete the prioritisation exercise, on paper or electronically, ranking the themes from 1 to 22. Comparisons were made with arithmetic mean ranking. Results Of the 510 prioritisation exercises completed, 179 (35%) participants were patients, 162 (32%) public, 43 (8%) scientists and 122 (24%) clinicians. The theme ranked of highest priority overall was 'better prevention' (arithmetic mean rank 6.4 (SE 0.23)). 'Better prevention' was ranked top or second by patients, public and clinicians (7 (0.39), 4.7 (0.34) and 6.8 (0.5), respectively), however, scientists ranked this as their sixth most important factor (7.7 (0.92)). The public and clinicians had good agreement with patients (r=0.84 and r=0.75, respectively), whereas scientists had moderate agreement with patients (r=0.65). Certain themes were ranked significantly differently by participant groups. Compared with clinicians, patients prioritised research into 'alternative to mammograms', 'diagnostic (cancer) blood test' and 'rare cancers' (OR 2.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 3.5), p=0.002, OR 2.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 3.5), p=0.004 and OR 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.8), p=0.03). Compared with scientists, patients deprioritised 'better laboratory models' (OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.8), p=0.01). Conclusion This study demonstrates that patients, public, clinicians and scientists have different research priorities, with scientists being a particular outlier. This highlights the need to ensure the engagement of patients and public in research funding prioritisation decisions.
medicine, general & internal