Open AccessLong‐term views on chronic kidney disease research priorities among stakeholders engaged in a priority‐setting partnership: A qualitative study
Author(s) -
Elliott Meghan J.,
Sale Joanna E. M.,
Goodarzi Zahra,
Wilhelm Linda,
Laupacis Andreas,
Hemmelgarn Brenda R.,
Straus Sharon E.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.12818
Subject(s) - deliberation , stakeholder , thematic analysis , stakeholder engagement , qualitative research , prioritization , general partnership , medicine , patient participation , psychology , participatory action research , health care , public relations , nursing , medical education , political science , sociology , business , process management , politics , anthropology , social science , law
Abstract Background Patients and stakeholders are increasingly engaging in health research to help address evidence‐practice gaps and improve health‐care delivery. We previously engaged patients, caregivers, health‐care providers ( HCP s) and policymakers in identifying priorities for chronic kidney disease ( CKD ) research. Objective We aimed to explore participants' views on the research priorities and prioritization process 2 years after the exercise took place. Design In this qualitative descriptive study, individual interviews were conducted and analysed using an inductive, thematic analysis approach. Setting/participants Participants resided across Canada. We purposively sampled across stakeholder groups ( CKD patients, caregivers, HCP s and policymakers) and types of engagement (wiki, workshop and/or steering committee) from the previous CKD priority‐setting project. Results Across 23 interviews, participants discussed their research priorities over time, views on the prioritization process and perceived applicability of the priorities. Even though their individual priorities may have changed, participants remained in agreement overall with the previously identified priorities, and some perceived a distinction between patient and HCP priorities. They tended to balance individual priorities with their broader potential impact and viewed the prioritization process as systematic, collaborative and legitimate. However, participants acknowledged challenges to applying the priorities and emphasized the importance of communicating the project's outcomes upon its completion. Conclusion Two years after engaging in CKD research prioritization, stakeholder participants remained in agreement with the previously identified priorities, which they felt reflected group deliberation and consensus. Rapport and communication were highlighted as key elements supporting effective engagement in research prioritization.