Assessment of the alignment between research funding allocation and consensus research priority areas in kidney cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16538-e16538
Author(s):  
Steven Lu ◽  
Jeenan Kaiser ◽  
Michael A.S. Jewett ◽  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Nimira S. Alimohamed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
Basic Science ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Funding Allocation ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
Cancer Management ◽  
Consensus Document ◽  
Prioritization Process ◽  
Research Priority

e16538 Background: Finite resources are available to fund research, and it is important to ensure stakeholder input is identified and prioritized. In this light, the KCRNC and CIHR sponsored a consensus-based priority-setting partnership that brought together a group of patients, caregivers, and clinicians to identify the top 10 research priorities in kidney cancer (Table), with a consensus document published in 2017. The final step of the prioritization process was to determine how research funding allocation has aligned with these previously identified priority areas. We report the results of this assessment. Methods: We queried publicly available Canadian and American research databases to identify all research funds allocated to kidney cancer from 2018-2020. Each funded project was assessed to determine which priority areas were addressed. We evaluated the percent of projects and percent of funding dollars (converted to USD) allocated to priority areas. Projects were stratified by country, type of research (basic science/translational or clinical), and cancer stage of focus (localized and/or metastatic). Results: A total of 121 kidney cancer research projects were funded between 2018-2020, with 15 Canadian projects (total $ = 1,906,398 USD) and 106 American projects (total $ = 56,317,386 USD). Most projects were basic science or translational (88%). Half (50%) of the projects focused on localized cancer while 26% of projects focused on metastatic kidney cancer. Overall, 49% of projects aligned to one priority area, 47% of projects aligned to multiple priority areas, and 4% of projects were not aligned to priority areas. The priority areas which received the most funding were causes of kidney cancer (priority #10, 64% of funds), biomarkers (priorities #1b+1c+5, 59%), and immunotherapies (priority #4, 41%)(Table). Unfunded priority areas were supportive care (priority #6) and the role of biopsy in kidney cancer management (priority #8). Conclusions: Nearly all kidney cancer projects funded since 2018 were aligned with one or multiple stakeholder-identified research priority areas, although some priority areas remain underfunded. Mechanisms to improve distribution of funding to all priority areas may be warranted.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: Identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 379-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jones ◽  
Jaimin Bhatt ◽  
Jonathan Avery ◽  
Andreas Laupacis ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Cancer Research Network ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

scholarly journals Community-Led Research Priority Setting for Highly Vulnerable Communities: Adaptation of the Research Prioritization by Affected Communities Protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 160940692095750
Author(s):  
Molly R. Altman ◽  
Jane Kim ◽  
Morgan Busse ◽  
Ira Kantrowitz-Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experience ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Participatory Process ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Research Prioritization ◽  
Vulnerable Communities ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Implementation And Dissemination

While community engagement can occur at all levels of research development, implementation, and dissemination, there is a great need for participation from those with lived experience in the development of research priorities to be used by stakeholders in research, funding, and policy. The Research Prioritization by Affected Communities (RPAC) protocol has successfully developed community-driven priorities for those at risk for preterm birth, but the 2-day focus group methodology may not be suitable for all vulnerable communities. For the purposes of a larger study supporting pregnant and parenting individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) in research prioritization, we adapted the RPAC protocol to meet the needs of this highly stigmatized community. This adaptation made it possible for those who may not have been able to attend two separate sessions to successfully engage in this participatory process and produce a completed set of priorities by the end of 1 day. The objective of this article is to validate the adapted protocol for prioritizing research and service delivery needs with vulnerable and stigmatized communities.

scholarly journals The role of cultural, community and natural assets in addressing societal and structural health inequalities in the UK: future research priorities

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L. J. Thomson ◽  
R. Gordon-Nesbitt ◽  
E. Elsden ◽  
H. J. Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Evaluation Methods ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
Structural Health ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Reducing health inequalities in the UK has been a policy priority for over 20 years, yet, despite efforts to create a more equal society, progress has been limited. Furthermore, some inequalities have widened and become more apparent, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. With growing recognition of the uneven distribution of life expectancy and of mental and physical health, the current research was commissioned to identify future research priorities to address UK societal and structural health inequalities. Methods An expert opinion consultancy process comprising an anonymous online survey and a consultation workshop were conducted to investigate priority areas for future research into UK inequalities. The seven-question survey asked respondents (n = 170) to indicate their current role, identify and prioritise areas of inequality, approaches and evaluation methods, and comment on future research priorities. The workshop was held to determine areas of research priority and attended by a closed list of delegates (n = 30) representing a range of academic disciplines and end-users of research from policy and practice. Delegates self-selected one of four breakout groups to determine research priority areas in four categories of inequality (health, social, economic, and other) and to allocate hypothetical sums of funding (half, one, five, and ten million pounds) to chosen priorities. Responses were analysed using mixed methods. Results Survey respondents were mainly ‘academics’ (33%), ‘voluntary/third sector professionals’ (17%), and ‘creative/cultural professionals’(16%). Survey questions identified the main areas of inequality as ‘health’ (58%), ‘social care’ (54%), and ‘living standards’ (47%). The first research priority was ‘access to creative and cultural opportunities’ (37%), second, ‘sense of place’ (23%), and third, ‘community’ (17%). Approaches seen to benefit from more research in relation to addressing inequalities were ‘health/social care’ (55%), ‘advice services’ (34%), and ‘adult education/training’ (26%). Preferred evaluation methods were ‘community/participatory’ (76%), ‘action research’ (62%), and ‘questionnaires/focus groups’ (53%). Survey respondents (25%) commented on interactions between inequalities and issues such as political and economic decisions, and climate. The key workshop finding from determining research priorities in areas of inequality was that health equity could only be achieved by tackling societal and structural inequalities, environmental conditions and housing, and having an active prevention programme. Conclusions Research demonstrates a clear need to assess the impact of cultural and natural assets in reducing inequality. Collaborations between community groups, service providers, local authorities, health commissioners, GPs, and researchers using longitudinal methods are needed within a multi-disciplinary approach to address societal and structural health inequalities.

Bladder cancer research funding in Canada and the United States: A comparison between stakeholder priorities and resource allocation from 2017 to 2019.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 422-422
Author(s):  
Jeenan Kaiser ◽  
Ishjot Litt ◽  
Angela B. Smith ◽  
Bimal Bhindi ◽  
Nimira S. Alimohamed
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Bladder Cancer ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer ◽  
Funding Allocation ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
The Us ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Muscle Invasive

422 Background: There is an increasing emphasis on patient-centered research to encourage cancer care that is responsive to patients' needs. Previously, the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) Patient Survey Network (PSN) engaged patients and other key stakeholders and compiled a prioritized list of research questions in bladder cancer. However, it is uncertain whether these priorities have successfully guided subsequent resource allocation by funding agencies. The purpose of this study was to understand how bladder cancer research funding has been allocated in recent years and to determine whether funding patterns have aligned with patient and caregiver priorities. Methods: We investigated publicly available research databases online or contacted agencies directly to determine bladder cancer research fund allocation in Canada and the US from 2017 to 2019. Each funding competition and all funded projects were evaluated to assess whether they aligned with previously identified priority research areas. Trends in funding allocation were assessed and several key variables including country, year, agency focus, cancer stage, and funding amount were analyzed. Results: Fifteen agencies provided funding to bladder cancer research between 2017 and 2019, amounting to a total of $78,525,974 in funding for 298 projects across Canada and the US. Of this funding, $23,268,258 (30%) went towards projects addressing the stakeholder-identified high priority research questions, $15,575,064 (20%) went towards projects addressing lesser priority questions, and the remaining $39,682,652 (50%) funded projects addressing questions which did not align with previously identified stakeholder priorities. General agencies (non-bladder cancer-specific) funded more priority (high and lesser) projects than bladder cancer-specific agencies (p < 0.001). Among projects addressing non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, 36% of funding went to high priority areas, compared to 13% and 27% for muscle-invasive bladder cancer and metastatic bladder cancer, respectively. Among the top 10% of projects (n = 30) with the greatest funding amount (combined $43,249,792), 45% of the funding went to high priority areas, 21% went to lesser priority areas, and 34% went to non-priority areas. Conclusions: Of nearly $80,000,000 USD allocated to bladder cancer research in recent years, approximately half was allocated to projects addressing stakeholder-identified priority areas while half was allocated to projects that were not aligned with stakeholder priorities. More work is needed to ensure stronger alignment between stakeholder-identified priority areas and funding allocation in bladder cancer research.

scholarly journals The Role of Cultural, Community and Natural Assets in Addressing Societal and Structural Health Inequalities in the UK: Future Research Priorities

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda JM Thomson ◽  
Rebecca Gordon-Nesbitt ◽  
Esme Elsden ◽  
Helen J Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Evaluation Methods ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
Structural Health ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Reducing health inequalities in the UK has been a policy priority for over 20 years, yet, despite efforts to create a more equal society, progress has been limited. Furthermore, some inequalities have widened and become more apparent, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. With growing recognition of the uneven distribution of life expectancy and of mental and physical health, the current research was commissioned to identify future research priorities to address UK societal and structural health inequalities.Methods: An expert opinion consultancy process comprising an anonymous online survey and a consultation workshop were carried out to investigate priority areas for future research into UK inequalities. The seven-question survey asked respondents (n=170) to indicate their current role, then identify and prioritise areas of inequality, approaches and evaluation methods. The workshop was held to determine areas of research priority and attended by a closed list of delegates (n=30) representing a range of academic disciplines and end-users of research from policy and practice. Delegates self-selected one of four breakout groups, to participate in determining research priority areas in four categories of inequality (health, social, economic, and other) and to allocate hypothetical sums of funding (half, one, five, and ten million pounds) to chosen priority areas. Responses were analysed using mixed methods.Results: Survey respondents determined the main areas of inequality as ‘health’, ‘social care’, ‘living standards’, and ‘economic factors’. The highest research priorities were ‘access to creative and cultural opportunities’, ‘sense of place’ and ‘community’. Approaches seen to benefit from more research were ‘health/social care’, ‘advice services’ and ‘adult education/training’. Preferred evaluation methods were ‘community/participatory’, ‘action research’, ‘questionnaires/focus groups’ and ‘ethnographic studies’. The key workshop finding was that health equity could only be achieved by tackling societal and structural inequalities, environmental conditions and housing, and having an active prevention programme.Conclusions: Research demonstrates a clear need to assess the impact of cultural and natural assets in reducing inequality. Collaborations between community groups, service providers, local authorities, health commissioners, GPs and researchers using longitudinal approaches are needed within a multi-disciplinary approach to address societal and structural health inequalities.

scholarly journals Applied sport science and medicine of women’s rugby codes: a systematic-scoping review and consensus on future research priorities protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e001108
Author(s):  
Omar Heyward ◽  
Stacey Emmonds ◽  
Gregory Roe ◽  
Sean Scantlebury ◽  
Keith Stokes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Consensus Method ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Sport Science ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Women’s rugby (rugby league, rugby union and rugby sevens) has recently grown in participation and professionalisation. There is under-representation of women-only cohorts within applied sport science and medicine research and within the women’s rugby evidence base. The aims of this article are: Part 1: to undertake a systematic-scoping review of the applied sport science and medicine of women’s rugby, and Part 2: to develop a consensus statement on future research priorities. This article will be designed in two parts: Part 1: a systematic-scoping review, and Part 2: a three-round Delphi consensus method. For Part 1, systematic searches of three electronic databases (PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost)) will be performed from the earliest record. These databases will be searched to identify any sport science and medicine themed studies within women’s rugby. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews will be adhered to. Part 2 involves a three-round Delphi consensus method to identify future research priorities. Identified experts in women’s rugby will be provided with overall findings from Part 1 to inform decision-making. Participants will then be asked to provide a list of research priority areas. Over the three rounds, priority areas achieving consensus (≥70% agreement) will be identified. This study has received institutional ethical approval. When complete, the manuscript will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The findings of this article will have relevance for a wide range of stakeholders in women’s rugby, including policymakers and governing bodies.

The 4Cs of mass customization in service industries: a customer lens

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 499-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Pallant ◽  
Sean Sands ◽  
Ingo Oswald Karpen
Keyword(s):  
Boundary Conditions ◽  
Mass Customization ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Service Industries ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
Research Priority

Purpose Increasingly, customers are demanding products that fit their individual needs. Many firms respond by cultivating product individualization via mass customization, often integrating this capability via interactive platforms that connect them with customers. Despite such customization, research to date has lacked cohesion, often taking the organizational, rather than customer, view. The purpose of this paper is to provide inconclusive theorizing in regard to customization from the consumers’ perspective. Design/methodology/approach The review and synthesis of the literature revealed that co-configuration is an underexplored domain of mass customization. Consequently, an initial conceptualization of co-configuration is developed and compared with current customization strategies. Specifically, the definition and boundary conditions of co-configuration are compared with three domains of mass customization, namely, co-production, co-construction and co-design. This led to the development of research priority areas to establish an agenda for future research on mass customization and its role in customer’ firm relationships. Findings This paper provides the delineation of four distinct consumer customization strategies, conceptualized in a matrix, and proposes separate customer journey visualizations. In advancing the theoretical understanding by means of a unifying typology, this paper identifies three existing Cs of mass customization (co-production, co-construction and co-design) and focuses specifically on a fourth (co-configuration), identified as an understudied mass customization strategy. Originality/value This paper extends the previous conceptualizations of mass customization comprising co-production, co-design and co-construction. The proposed typology establishes a foundation for four research priority areas that can improve both academic rigor and practical application.

Comparison of UK and European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines for kidney cancer management

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-138
Author(s):  
David Nicol
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
European Association ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Specific Strength ◽  
Cancer Management ◽  
Funding Model ◽  
Cancer Networks ◽  
The Uk ◽  
European Association Of Urology

Clinical practice frequently utilises guidelines on how specific conditions should be managed. For urologists in the UK a range of sources are used as guidelines for the management of kidney cancer. These include documents from national bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), professional bodies as well as those prepared by individual groups of clinicians within regional cancer networks. In this article the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on renal cell carcinoma are compared to guidelines used in the UK for this disease. Broadly consistent variations exist related to regional practice patterns, funding and the currency of the various guidelines. A specific strength of the EAU guidelines is the regular updating of these allowing incorporation of new evidence. These however do not consider the funding model for healthcare of the UK which dictates the availability of some treatment modalities and thus in some areas are not applicable. Current guidelines for kidney cancer developed within the UK are inconsistent and often outdated in terms of evidence sources. Broader use of the EAU guidelines within the economic restrictions of healthcare in the UK may result in a more consistent practise utilising current evidence sources in the management of kidney cancer.

scholarly journals Universal Access to Health and Universal Health Coverage: identification of nursing research priorities in Latin America

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1195-1208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Helena De Bortoli Cassiani ◽  
Alessandra Bassalobre-Garcia ◽  
Ludovic Reveiz
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Universal Access ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Nursing Research ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Access To Health ◽  
Universal Health

Objective: To estabilish a regional list for nursing research priorities in health systems and services in the Region of the Americas based on the concepts of Universal Access to Health and Universal Health Coverage. Method: five-stage consensus process: systematic review of literature; appraisal of resulting questions and topics; ranking of the items by graduate program coordinators; discussion and ranking amongst a forum of researchers and public health leaders; and consultation with the Ministries of Health of the Pan American Health Organization's member states. Results: the resulting list of nursing research priorities consists of 276 study questions/ topics, which are sorted into 14 subcategories distributed into six major categories: 1. Policies and education of nursing human resources; 2. Structure, organization and dynamics of health systems and services; 3. Science, technology, innovation, and information systems in public health; 4. Financing of health systems and services; 5. Health policies, governance, and social control; and 6. Social studies in the health field. Conclusion: the list of nursing research priorities is expected to serve as guidance and support for nursing research on health systems and services across Latin America. Not only researchers, but also Ministries of Health, leaders in public health, and research funding agencies are encouraged to use the results of this list to help inform research-funding decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document