Patient and public priorities for breast cancer research: a qualitative study in the UK

Abstract

ObjectiveInternationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals have published breast cancer research gaps that are informing research funding priorities in the UK and worldwide. We aimed to determine the breast cancer research priorities of the public to compare with those identified by clinicians and scientists.DesignWe conducted a qualitative study and thematic analysis using ‘listening events’ where patients with breast cancer and public representatives used a patient’s breast cancer journey to identify research themes.Participants and settingFemale participants were recruited from attendees at participating hospitals and support groups in the northwest of England, including patients, their family and friends as well as staff at a local retail centre.InterventionA framework approach was used to analyse transcribed discussions until thematic saturation was reached.Main outcome measuresBreast cancer research priorities were identified from participant discussions and compared with the published gaps identified by scientists and healthcare professionals.ResultsThematic saturation was reached after 27 female participants participated in listening events. Our participants consistently focused on improved methods of dissemination of information and improving education on the signs and symptoms of breast cancer. This was not highlighted by scientists or healthcare professionals. There was strong emphasis on quality of life-related issues such as side effects of treatment. There was some agreement between the priorities deduced by our study and those of the professionals in the areas of screening, prevention and breast reconstruction.ConclusionOur study identified some research themes that were not identified by scientists and healthcare professionals in two earlier landmark studies. This highlights the importance of including patients and public representatives when setting research priorities. The results should be used to guide investigators when planning future studies and for funding bodies in allocating resources for future projects.