ArticleBMJ open2017
Does funded research reflect the priorities of people living with type 1 diabetes? A secondary analysis of research questions.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diabetes Research Matters: A Three-Round Priority-Setting Survey Consultation with Adults Living with Diabetes and Family Members in Australia.The patient · 2024Article
- Diabetes-related research priorities of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Germany.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A proposed methodology for uncertainty extraction and verification in priority setting partnerships with the James Lind Alliance: an example from the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist Priority Setting Partnership.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Review
- Methods to Generate Innovative Research Ideas and Improve Patient and Public Involvement in Modern Epidemiological Research: Review, Patient Viewpoint, and Guidelines for Implementation of a Digital Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Review
- The top 10 research priorities in diabetes and pregnancy according to women, support networks and healthcare professionals.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2021Article
- Common hand and wrist conditions: creation of UK research priorities defined by a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.BMJ open · 2021Article
- How is knowledge shared in Public involvement? A qualitative study of involvement in a health technology assessment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Article
- A conceptual framework for capacity strengthening of health research in conflict: the case of the Middle East and North Africa region.Globalization and health · 2019Article
- Gaps in Knowledge and the Need for Patient-Partners in Research Related to Physical Activity and Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019Review
- Article
- Using qualitative Health Research methods to improve patient and public involvement and engagement in research.Research involvement and engagement · 2018Article
- Identifying Research Priorities in Limb Reconstruction Surgery in the United Kingdom.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstructionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study explored the divergence and convergence between funded research about type 1 diabetes and the research agenda of people living with the condition and their carers. DESIGN, METHOD,
settingA secondary analysis was undertaken of existing data from two UK organisations who regularly work with patients and carers to identify research priorities. The research ideas of people with diabetes were identified in two ways: in 15 research question generation workshops involving approximately 100 patients and carers, and in a James Lind Alliance Type 1 Diabetes Priority Setting Partnership with approximately 580 patients, carers and clinicians (clinician question submissions were excluded from analysis). A total of 859 individual research questions were collected from patients and carers. Diabetes research funding activity was identified through extensive online searches which provided a total of 172 relevant research projects for analysis.
resultsThe data were thematically analysed and areas of priority for research identified and compared between the patient and funded research agendas. The overall finding of this study is that there is substantial convergence between the two research agendas, alongside some important areas of divergence. The key areas of divergence were found in care delivery, injection issues, psychosocial impacts and women's health. We also demonstrate how an apparently convergent priority can host significant differences in emphasis between patient-generated and funded research agendas.
conclusionsWe offer a comparison of a funded research agenda with one that has been derived directly from people with type 1 diabetes without initial framing by researchers. This provided a rare opportunity to explore the viewpoints of the end-users of research and compare them to realised research as determined by researchers and research organisations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.