Cardiovascular imaging research priorities.

OBJECTIVES: Two interlinked surveys were organised by the British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre, which aimed to establish national priorities for cardiovascular imaging research. METHODS: First a single time point public survey explored their views of cardiovascular imaging research. Subsequently, a three-phase modified Delphi prioritisation exercise was performed by researchers and healthcare professionals. Research questions were submitted by a diverse range of stakeholders to the question 'What are the most important research questions that cardiovascular imaging should be used to address?'. Of these, 100 research questions were prioritised based on their positive impact for patients. The 32 highest rated questions were further prioritised based on three domains: positive impact for patients, potential to reduce inequalities in healthcare and ability to be implemented into UK healthcare practice in a timely manner. RESULTS: The public survey was completed by 354 individuals, with the highest rated areas relating to improving treatment, quality of life and diagnosis. In the second survey, 506 research questions were submitted by diverse stakeholders. Prioritisation was performed by 90 researchers or healthcare professionals in the first round and 64 in the second round. The highest rated questions were 'How do we ensure patients have equal access to cardiovascular imaging when it is needed?' and 'How can we use cardiovascular imaging to avoid invasive procedures'. There was general agreement between healthcare professionals and researchers regarding priorities for the positive impact for patients and least agreement for their ability to be implemented into UK healthcare practice in a timely manner. There was broad overlap between the prioritised research questions and the results of the public survey. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified priorities for cardiovascular imaging research, incorporating the views of diverse stakeholders. These priorities will be useful for researchers, funders and other organisations planning future research.

Evaluating public involvement in research design and grant development: Using a qualitative document analysis method to analyse an award scheme for researchers.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS) for Yorkshire and Humber has been running a public involvement funding scheme since 2008. This scheme awards researchers a small amount of money to help them get involvement from patients and/or the public. Involvement activities take place at the time when researchers are planning studies, and when they are completing application forms to request funding for a proposed research project. After the public involvement activities researchers are asked to write a report for the RDS describing what they did with the public involvement funding. This study analysed those reports using an approach which included members of a public involvement panel in the data analysis process. The aim of the work was to see what the views and experiences of researchers who received funding were, and what might be learned for the future of the scheme. Twenty five reports were analysed. Four main themes were identified, these described: the added value of public involvement; aspects to consider when planning and designing public involvement; different roles of public contributors; and aspects of valuing public member contributions. The group approach to analysis was successful in enabling involvement of a variety of individuals in the process. The findings of the study provide evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding. The results also indicate that researchers recognise the variety in potential roles for the public in research, and acknowledge how involvement adds value to studies. ABSTRACT: Background A regional Research Design Service, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, introduced a small grant in 2008, to support public involvement (often known as patient and public involvement [PPI]) activities during the development of applications for research funding. Successful applicants are requested to submit a report detailing how the grant money was used, including a description of the aims and outcomes of the public involvement activities. The purpose of this study was to analyse the content of these reports. We aimed to find out what researcher views and experiences of public involvement activities were, and what lessons might be learned. Methods We used an innovative method of data analysis, drawing on group participatory approaches, qualitative content analysis, and Framework Analysis to sort and label the content of the reports. We developed a framework of categories and sub-categories (or themes and sub-themes) from this process. Results Twenty five documents were analysed. Four main themes were identified in the data: the added value of public involvement; planning and designing involvement; the role of public members; and valuing public member contributions. Within these themes, sub-themes related to the timing of involvement (prior to the research study/intended during the research study), and also specific benefits of public involvement such as: validating ideas; ensuring appropriate outcomes; ensuring the acceptability of data collection methods/tools and advice regarding research processes. Other sub-themes related to: finding and approaching public members; timing of events; training/support; the format of sessions; setting up public involvement panels: use of public contributors in analysis and interpretation of data; and using public members to assist with dissemination and translation into practice. Conclusions The analysis of reports submitted by researchers following involvement events provides evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding, and details a method for involving members of the public in data analysis which could be of value to other researchers The findings of the analysis indicate recognition amongst researchers of the variety in potential roles for public members in research, and also an acknowledgement of how involvement adds value to studies.