IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0162136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining Priorities for Future Research: Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership

Author

Listed:
  • Simon R Knight
  • Leanne Metcalfe
  • Katriona O’Donoghue
  • Simon T Ball
  • Angela Beale
  • William Beale
  • Rachel Hilton
  • Keith Hodkinson
  • Graham W Lipkin
  • Fiona Loud
  • Lorna P Marson
  • Peter J Morris

Abstract

Background: It has been suggested that the research priorities of those funding and performing research in transplantation may differ from those of end service users such as patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in day-to-day care. The Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established with the aim of involving all stakeholders in prioritising future research in the field. Methods: The PSP methodology is as outlined by the James Lind Alliance. An initial survey collected unanswered research questions from patients, carers and clinicians. Duplicate and out-of-scope topics were excluded and the existing literature searched to identify topics answered by current evidence. An interim prioritisation survey asked patients and professionals to score the importance of the remaining questions to create a ranked long-list. These were considered at a final consensus workshop using a modified nominal group technique to agree a final top ten. Results: The initial survey identified 497 questions from 183 respondents, covering all aspects of transplantation from assessment through to long-term follow-up. These were grouped into 90 unanswered “indicative” questions. The interim prioritisation survey received 256 responses (34.8% patients/carers, 10.9% donors and 54.3% professionals), resulting in a ranked list of 25 questions that were considered during the final workshop. Participants agreed a top ten priorities for future research that included optimisation of immunosuppression (improved monitoring, choice of regimen, personalisation), prevention of sensitisation and transplanting the sensitised patient, management of antibody-mediated rejection, long-term risks to live donors, methods of organ preservation, induction of tolerance and bioengineering of organs. There was evidence that patient and carer involvement had a significant impact on shaping the final priorities. Conclusions: The final list of priorities relates to all stages of the transplant process, including access to transplantation, living donation, organ preservation, post-transplant care and management of the failing transplant. This list of priorities will provide an invaluable resource for researchers and funders to direct future activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon R Knight & Leanne Metcalfe & Katriona O’Donoghue & Simon T Ball & Angela Beale & William Beale & Rachel Hilton & Keith Hodkinson & Graham W Lipkin & Fiona Loud & Lorna P Marson & Peter J Morris, 2016. "Defining Priorities for Future Research: Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0162136
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162136
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162136&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0162136?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0162136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.