Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process

Benjamin M. Jacob; Heather Burns; Ming Chuen Chong; Barbara Clyne; Primary Care PPI Group (HRB Primary Care Clinical Trials Network); Laura O'Connor; Kathleen Bennett; Patrick Redmond

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13750.2

Home Browse Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Previous titie: Establishing a stakeholder group for primary care focused cancer research in Ireland

Benjamin M. Jacob ¹, Heather Burns², Ming Chuen Chong¹, [...] Barbara Clyne³, Primary Care PPI Group (HRB Primary Care Clinical Trials Network), Laura O'Connor⁴, Kathleen Bennett⁵, Patrick Redmond¹

Benjamin M. Jacob ¹, Heather Burns², [...] Ming Chuen Chong¹, Barbara Clyne³, Primary Care PPI Group (HRB Primary Care Clinical Trials Network), Laura O'Connor⁴, Kathleen Bennett⁵, Patrick Redmond¹

PUBLISHED 19 Dec 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
² National Cancer Control Programme, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland
³ Department of Public Health & Epidemiology, School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
⁴ HRB Primary Care Clinical Trials Network, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
⁵ Data Science Centre, School of Population Heath, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

Benjamin M. Jacob
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Heather Burns
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Ming Chuen Chong
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Barbara Clyne
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Laura O'Connor
Roles: Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Kathleen Bennett
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Patrick Redmond
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Introduction

Currently, no group specifically supports and coordinates primary care focused cancer research in Ireland. The aim of this project is to establish an inclusive stakeholder group for primary care focused cancer research in Ireland, to coordinate research efforts and build capacity in researchers and institutions.

Methods

We will convene a stakeholder group, recruiting individuals with personal and professional experience of cancer care in a community setting. “Core stakeholders”—patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers—will attend regularly. Additional “specialist stakeholders”, such as representatives of secondary care, private healthcare, health insurance, industry, cancer charities, and health research funders, will participate on an ad hoc basis. An e-Delphi consensus process will be used to assess the stakeholders’ views on: (1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice. Round 1 will be open-ended and will invite the independent suggestions of stakeholders; in Round 2 and 3, group members will vote on the inclusion of these suggestions in a position statement by the group, with consensus defined as ≥75% agreement.

Discussion

The formation of a broad stakeholder group to support primary care focused cancer research will ensure research is relevant, patient centered, and more readily translated into practice. It is also hoped that the group will support capacity building and strategic planning in this important research space.

Keywords

Stakeholder engagement; Patient and public involvement; Steering group; Primary care; Cancer research; Research funding; Ireland

Corresponding author: Benjamin M. Jacob

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Benjamin Jacob was funded by a HSE/ICGP Post CSCST Fellowship Award to conduct this work. Barbara Clyne is funded by a Health Research Board (HRB) Emerging Investigator Award (EIA-2019–09).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Jacob BM et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Jacob BM, Burns H, Chong MC et al. Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2023, 6:53 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13750.2) First published: 13 Sep 2023, 6:53 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13750.1) Latest published: 19 Dec 2023, 6:53 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13750.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The main change is to the title which adds details on how the stakeholder group was a established (i.e., via the 7P Framework and an e-Delphi process) and therefore highlights why the paper may be of interest.

Other peer review comments (on the reason for publishing this protocol, the nature of the proposed group compared with a project steering committee, and the lack of consideration of EDI concerns in the original 2012 Concannon framework) were addressed by clarification, rather than edits to the manuscript.

Ming Chuen Chong has been added as a co-author because they contributed to the revised version of the article, responding to the suggestions and comments of the peer reviewers.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jon Salsberg
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Desmond Leddin

Introduction

Background

Cancer imposes a significant healthcare burden in Ireland with an average of 35,825 invasive cancers diagnosed annually between 2018-2020¹, costing €207 per capita or 5% of all healthcare expenditure costs annually—in addition to €116 per capita in indirect costs, due to lost earnings². Internationally, cancer research is a major destination for research funding³, receiving approximately 25% of all disease-specific funding in the UK between 2004 and 2018⁴. In Ireland, the Health Research Board (HRB) reported that €35.8 million out of a total €131.8 million in 2021 was awarded to cancer related trials⁵.

In the United Kingdom, the National Cancer Research Institute was established to promote collaboration between cancer research funders to maximise the value and benefits of cancer research for patients and the public⁶. In Ireland, the National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP) has established a National Cancer Research Group which provides strategic leadership to the NCCP, Department of Health and other partners to implement the National Cancer Strategy⁷. Similarly, the All-Island Cancer Research Institute provides a cancer research framework from “discovery to clinical implementation” in and between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland⁸.

The Irish Department of Health’s National Cancer Strategy (2017–2026) recommends that “clinical cancer research, and the staff who deliver it, become a fully integrated component of cancer care delivery”⁷. Primary care professionals have a key role across the continuum of cancer care—in prevention, screening, early detection, treatment, survivorship and end of life care^9–11. General Practitioners (GPs) are the initial point of contact for most patients presenting with symptoms of cancer¹². The delivery of primary care across the cancer continuum is influenced by unique structural and systems factors^13,14. This requires specific study designs, methods, and funding to address primary care policy, practice, service, workforce design, and intervention development and evaluation¹⁵. The research skillset and infrastructure they demand, and the relative underfunding of primary care research (vis-à-vis other areas of health services research)^15–19, foster a research ecosystem with unique challenges and priorities.

However, in contrast to basic science and secondary care research, currently no group specifically supports and coordinates primary care focused cancer research in Ireland. This represents an important gap in the Irish research ecosystem because: (1) primary care shares a large part of the cancer control burden in any health system; (2) research is needed to inform and improve care; and (3) research findings from secondary care setting are typically not generalisable to primary care.

We believe that, to address these primary care-specific challenges and priorities, a stakeholder group which specifically supports and coordinates primary care focused cancer research is needed.

Aims and objectives

1. Convening a stakeholder group

This protocol describes the establishment of an inclusive stakeholder group to support primary care focused cancer-related research in Ireland. This group will aim to address three broad needs: (1) to serve as a forum for key stakeholders, including the public, patients, clinicians, funders, researchers and policymakers to collaborate, enabling strategic planning and preventing duplication of research; (2) to build capacity in primary care cancer researchers, equipping them with knowledge and strengthening competence; (3) to improve research impact through strategic dissemination of research findings to clinicians and policymakers.

2. e-Delphi exercise

We will also conduct an e-Delphi exercise to gain consensus from stakeholders on: (1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice.

Methods

We will convene a stakeholder group, guided by the established recommendations for multistakeholder engagement in health research²⁰. Then we will conduct an e-Delphi exercise, in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES)²¹. Any deviations from the methodology described by this protocol will be reported, justified by a rationale and applied systematically.

1. Convening a stakeholder group for primary care focused cancer research in Ireland

Eligibility and diversity of stakeholders

To be eligible for inclusion in the stakeholder group for primary care focused cancer research in Ireland, an individual must have personal experience of cancer care in a community setting (i.e., as a patient or caregiver), or have clinical, research, policy or advocacy experience in this area.

To achieve the goal of an inclusive membership, Concannon’s 7P taxonomy for stakeholder engagement will be utilised to ensure broad stakeholder representation and adapted to the Irish primary care context²⁰. The categories “Patients/Public”, “Providers”, “Principal Investigators (PIs)”, and “Policymakers” yield four “core stakeholder” groups which we have renamed: (1) “Patients”— Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors, caregivers, and representatives from cancer advocacy organisations; (2) “Clinicians”—GPs and other healthcare professionals involved in cancer control in a community setting; (3) “Researchers”—academics and representatives of funding organisations with an interest in primary care focused cancer research; (4) “Policymakers”—HSE staff, civil servants or Department of Health representatives working in the area of primary care cancer policy.

To ensure that the perspectives of all key stakeholders of primary care cancer research are represented, we propose to recruit a minimum of two members from the four core stakeholder groups and recommend representation of all four at every meeting. However, the requirements for a quorum, as with all the operational methods, will be definitively determined by the group.

To facilitate the participation of additional stakeholders with more niche interests, we propose to distinguish between the core stakeholders described above, and “specialist stakeholders”, who are expected to contribute only when the meeting agenda concerns their area of expertise or interest. This distinction will serve to boost inclusivity by ensuring efficient stakeholder participation, enabling some stakeholders to decline meetings which are not relevant to their role, scope of practice or specialist interests.

The three remaining categories of Concannon’s 7P taxonomy: “Purchasers” (of health insurance), “Payers” (i.e., health insurance companies), and “Product” (device and drug manufacturers), are more applicable to the US healthcare setting, and the activities of the stakeholder group may only occasionally be of relevance to them. Hence, we plan to invite representatives from private healthcare, health insurance, and industry (pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and medical software) to participate on an ad-hoc basis as specialist stakeholders. The various stakeholders of primary care focused cancer research and their role within the proposed group is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The stakeholders of primary care cancer research, and their role within the proposed group.

Identification and recruitment

We will adopt different recruitment strategies across the different stakeholder groups.

Patients and carers will be recruited via our Public and patient involvement (PPI) partners, the HRB PPI Ignite and HRB Primary Care Clinical Trials Network. Cancer advocacy organisations (the Irish Cancer Society, Marie Keating Foundation, and Breakthrough Cancer Research) will also be contacted to invite a representative to contribute to the stakeholder group.

Invites to clinicians and academics working in cancer care will be sent via established primary care and cancer research mailing lists and social media channels by the authors, who are involved with organisations such as the Association of University Department of General Practice in Ireland (AUDGPI), the HRB Primary Care Clinical Trials Network, the Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP), and cancer research organisations. Policymakers and government representatives will be approached via the National Cancer Control Program and the National Cancer Registry.

Operational methods of the stakeholder group

The operational methods of the group will not be fixed in advance, but rather will be decided upon by the participating stakeholders, informed by the results of the e-Delphi exercise described below.

2. e-Delphi exercise

We will employ three rounds of an e-Delphi study to gather stakeholders’ beliefs, prior to the group’s first meeting, on four areas of interest:

(1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research,
(2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group,
(3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research, and
(4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice.

A Delphi process was chosen because it is a well-established methodology designed to systematically collate expert consultation and build consensus among a diverse group^22,23. Additionally, the Delphi technique may be performed remotely, which will be convenient for the stakeholders. Stakeholder group members will be invited to participate in the e-Delphi exercise if they feel that they have an interest in primary care cancer research in general—i.e., all the core stakeholders and some of the specialist stakeholders.

Software

We will use Microsoft Forms to run the e-Delphi exercise. This will be piloted by the RCSI Department of General Practice staff and PPI contributors.

Stages of the e-Delphi exercise

Round 1 is open-ended; participants are free to make an unlimited number of suggestions in response to the following questions:

1. Relevance—Why is primary care cancer research important?
2(a). Scope
- i. What should be included within the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
- ii. What should be excluded from the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
2(b). Role—What kind of things should the stakeholder group do to further the cause of primary care cancer research in Ireland?
3. Engagement—How should a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research engage with those who have a lived experience of cancer?
4(a). Dissemination—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the dissemination of findings?
4(b). Impact—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the translation of research findings into benefits for patients?

In Round 2, the participants will be presented with the same 5 sections, but the task is voting (on the items generated from the previous round) rather than free-text answers. In sections 1 to 3, the participant will vote on inclusion in a finalised list to be published as a position statement. In sections 4 and 5, the participant will vote on whether a suggestion (a) should be included as a primary priority, (b) should be included as a secondary priority, or (c) should not be included at all in a finalised list to be published in the position statement. In Round 2, the participants are permitted to comment with their justification for any of the decisions/recommendations.

In Round 3, the participants will vote again on the same items as in Round 2, however this time they will be presented with both the results and justifications from Round 2.

After Round 3, if a consensus has not been achieved, the process will be terminated to prevent stakeholder fatigue, and a resolution will be sought at an in-person meeting of the stakeholder group. Both the failure to achieve consensus via the e-Delphi procedure, and the subsequent resolution achieved thereafter, will be reported.

The time between rounds is expected to be approximately one to two weeks, owing to the requirement to summarise the free-text answers from the previous round and to follow up with each participant who will be completing the exercise at a time of their choosing.

Definition of consensus

In sections 1 to 3 of the e-Delphi exercise, consensus is defined as ≥75% agreement that the item should be included or excluded²⁴. In sections 4 to 5 of the e-Delphi exercise, consensus is defined as ≥75% agreement that the item should be included in a given category. Any subsequent deviations from this definition of consensus will be justified and reported.

Informational input and risk of bias

Since Round 1 of the e-Delphi study is open-ended, no information will be provided to the participants so as not to bias them towards a particular answer or answers. After Round 1, the investigators will summarise the results of the open-ended round by merging and paraphrasing “suggestions” believed to possess the same meaning. This summarised list will be presented to the participants for Round 2 for voting—i.e., while the participants will vote on paraphrased suggestions from Round 1, they will be presented with the suggestions in their original form. After Round 2, the investigators will merge and paraphrase “justifications” believed to possess the same meaning. Again, in Round 3, participants will be presented with the justifications in both their paraphrased and original form.

Discussion

1. Stakeholder group membership

We will describe the characteristics of stakeholder group members: their areas of interest, expertise, professional role and scope of practice, and institutional affiliations where appropriate, as well as their demographic characteristics. We will report separately the makeup of the e-Delphi “expert panel”, per the requirements of the CREDES reporting guideline.

2. e-Delphi results

We will outline the results of the e-Delphi exercise under the following headings:

(1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research,

(2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group,

(3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research, and

(4) how best to disseminate results and advocate for translation of findings into practice.

We will report results for each round separately, to make transparent the evolving of consensus over successive rounds. This will include figures showing the average group response, changes between rounds, as well as any modifications of the survey instrument such as deletion, addition, or modification of survey items based on previous rounds.

3. Other results

At the first in-person meeting of the group, members will agree upon the operational methods of the group, a finalised list of objectives, and an action plan for the coming year, informed by the results of the e-Delphi exercise. This will form the basis of a “Terms of Reference” document for the group and will be reported as an appendix.

The stakeholder group will also develop a position statement on primary care focused cancer research in Ireland, informed by the results of the e-Delphi exercise – this will be included for publication (as an appendix). The position statement will comment on (1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders (the public, patients, and carers) and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how best to disseminate results and advocate for translation of findings into practice.

We will include a reflection of potential limitations of the e-Delphi exercise and their impact on the resulting Terms of Reference and position statement of the stakeholder group²¹. Where it is achieved, we will report endorsement of the position statement by relevant professionals and professional bodies to boost dissemination²¹.

Dissemination

In addition to a peer-reviewed open access publication and academic conference presentations, we will also disseminate the findings to a broad range of professional networks with relevance to primary care cancer research. Moreover, we intend to report on the progress of the project at a public event focusing on cancer control in primary care, planned for late 2023.

Once convened, the stakeholder will identify appropriate audiences to engage when sharing the outcomes, such as researchers, policymakers, funders, and patient and clinical communities.

Conclusion

The formation of a broad stakeholder group in primary care focused cancer research, representing both professional and lived experience stakeholders, will ensure research is relevant, patient centred, and more readily translated into practice²⁵.

Study status

At the time of submission, the stakeholder group had not yet been convened. It was planned that this would occur at during the period July to September 2023.

Ethical considerations

The Research Ethics Committee at RCSI granted approval for this project (REC202301024)

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. National Cancer Registry Ireland: Cancer in Ireland 1994-2020: Annual Statistical Report of the National Cancer Registry. Cork, Ireland, 2022. Reference Source
2. Hofmarcher T, Ericson O, Lindgren P: Comparator Report on Cancer in Ireland–Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines. 2022; Accessed: Apr. 26, 2023. Reference Source
3. Tilson L, Sharp L, Usher C, et al.: Cost of care for colorectal cancer in Ireland: A health care payer perspective. Eur J Health Econ. 2012; 13(4): 511–524. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. UK Clinical Research Collaboration: UK Health Research Analysis 2018. 2020. Reference Source
5. Health Research Board (HRB): Annual Report 2021. Dublin, 2022. Reference Source
6. National Cancer Research Institute: Overview: History of NCRI. NCRI website, 2021; (accessed Nov. 15, 2022). Reference Source
7. Department of Health: National Cancer Strategy 2017-2026. Dublin, Ireland, 2017. Reference Source
8. AIl-Island Cancer Research Institute: About AICRI. 2022; (accessed Dec. 20, 2022). Reference Source
9. Emery JD, Shaw K, Williams B, et al.: The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014; 11(1): 38–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Emery J: Cancer survivorship — the role of the GP. Aust Fam Physician. 2014; 43(8): 521–5. PubMed Abstract
11. European Commission: Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Brussels, 2021. Reference Source
12. O’Shea MT, Collins C: Access to Diagnostics Used to Detect Cancer. 2016. Reference Source
13. Hogg W, Rowan M, Russell G, et al.: Framework for primary care organizations: the importance of a structural domain. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008; 20(5): 308–313. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Harris M, Vedsted P, Esteva M, et al.: Identifying important health system factors that influence primary care practitioners’ referrals for cancer suspicion: a European cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(9): e022904. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Perry M, Wallace E, et al.: A future in primary care research: A view from the middle. Br J Gen Pract. 2018; 68(674): 440–441. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Mendel P, Gidengil CA, Tomoaia-Cotisel A, et al.: Health Services and Primary Care Research Study: Comprehensive Report. 2021. Publisher Full Text
17. Cameron BJ, Bazemore AW, Morley CP: Lost in Translation: NIH Funding for Family Medicine Research Remains Limited. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016; 29(5): 528–530. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Westfall JM, Wittenberg HR, Liaw W: Time to Invest in Primary Care Research—Commentary on Findings from an Independent Congressionally Mandated Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2021; 36(7): 2117–2120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. MacConnachie V: Understanding the primary care research landscape. 2023; Accessed: Apr.05, 2023. Reference Source
20. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, et al.: A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27(8): 985–991. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
21. Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, et al.: Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017; 31(8): 684–706. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, et al.: Consensus Methods: Characteristics and Guidelines for Use. Am J Public Health. 1984; 74(9): 979–983. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Black N, Murphy M, Lamping D, et al.: Consensus development methods: a review of best practice in creating clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999; 4(4): 236–248. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, et al.: Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(4): 401–409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A: Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: Moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015; 4(2): 133–145. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Sep 2023

Author details Author details

Benjamin M. Jacob
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Heather Burns
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Ming Chuen Chong
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Barbara Clyne
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Laura O'Connor
Roles: Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Kathleen Bennett
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Patrick Redmond
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Benjamin Jacob was funded by a HSE/ICGP Post CSCST Fellowship Award to conduct this work. Barbara Clyne is funded by a Health Research Board (HRB) Emerging Investigator Award (EIA-2019–09).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 19 Dec 2023, 6:53

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13750.2

version 1

Published: 13 Sep 2023, 6:53

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13750.1

© 2023 Jacob BM et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

645

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Jacob BM, Burns H, Chong MC et al. Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2023, 6:53 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13750.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 19 Dec 2023

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 27 Jan 2024

Jon Salsberg, Primary Healthcare Research, University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, Ireland

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15154.r37515

I am happy with the authors' ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 13 Sep 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 18 Oct 2023

Jon Salsberg, Primary Healthcare Research, University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, Ireland

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15041.r36341

I am very please to see this contribution to the literature. There is a need for guidance for and examples of stakeholder involvement as the imperative for PPI continues to grow.

Overall, this is a good protocol which should help guide other groups, even beyond cancer care or primary care, to convene effective stakeholder groups.

With this said, there are still a few points for improvement in the current manuscript.

1) Protocol?

1a) The title implies that the authors are presenting a novel protocol for establishing a stakeholder group. In fact, they are simply presenting Concannon et al's 2012 protocol.

1b) The authors are appropriately using a Delphi process to assess and consolidate stakeholder views. However, there is nothing particularly novel about the approach or how they are using it.

1c) Therefore, although this will be an interesting study, and I look forward to reading the outcomes, I'm not sure what we are gaining from a published protocol in advance of actual findings. However, SEE BELOW for some suggestions on how this could still be a valuable protocol.

1d) Even if it does proceed, a better title would focus on 'Using an e-Delphi process to...' Because that is what this is mostly about.

2) Issues with the engagement approach

2a) Although Concannon et al. is a good start and does indeed set the framework for a strong engagement process, it is getting a bit dated in terms of PPI scholarship (2012) and omits to address several issues that have emerged since.

2a.i) Concannon does not directly address issues of representation, including EDI issues and reaching underrepresented or underserved segments of the population. Without this, steering groups tend to contain the 'usual suspects'. This would be an EXCELLENT opportunity for this protocol to ADD to Concannon and suggest something novel.

2a.ii) Concannon does not directly address the ethical considerations surrounding steering group recruitment and selection. These are numerous but big ones are duality of relationships for PPI contributors (e.g., serving on the same panel as their health care provider and the power and vulnerabilities this can create); and researchers' duty of care toward vulnerable PPI contributors. Again, an excellent opportunity for the authors to ADD to Concannon.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: PPI, participatory health research, primary care research, systematic review, community and population health.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 19 Dec 2023

Benjamin Jacob, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

19 Dec 2023

Author Response

Comment/Suggestion #1:
"The title implies that the authors are presenting a novel protocol for establishing a stakeholder group. In fact, they are simply presenting Concannon et al's 2012 protocol... The authors ... Continue reading Comment/Suggestion #1:
"The title implies that the authors are presenting a novel protocol for establishing a stakeholder group. In fact, they are simply presenting Concannon et al's 2012 protocol... The authors are appropriately using a Delphi process to assess and consolidate stakeholder views. However, there is nothing particularly novel about the approach or how they are using it....Therefore, although this will be an interesting study, and I look forward to reading the outcomes, I'm not sure what we are gaining from a published protocol in advance of actual findings. However, SEE BELOW for some suggestions on how this could still be a valuable protocol... Even if it does proceed, a better title would focus on 'Using an e-Delphi process to...' Because that is what this is mostly about."

Response #1:
As you’ve already said, our approach to establishing the stakeholder group involves two aspects: (1) convening a stakeholder group, using a modified Concannon 7P Framework, and (2) exploring stakeholder values in order to guide the process, using an e-Delphi process. Therefore, it feels like the title should not the e-Delphi process without mentioning the 7P Framework also.

We could thus suggest a new title as follows: “Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process”. It might be considered a little longwinded? But if you find a shorter title—e.g., Protocol for Establishing SPARC—a Stakeholder group for Primary cAre Research into Cancer—to be misleading, we would be happy to accept the former.

Our rationale for publishing the protocol is not because of the novelty of the methods (as you rightly point out, we are following a well-established approach). Rather our primary motivation was academic transparency (and the consequent reduction of publication bias/selective reporting), as well as the reduction of research duplication.

Comment/Suggestion #2:
"Although Concannon et al. is a good start and does indeed set the framework for a strong engagement process, it is getting a bit dated in terms of PPI scholarship (2012) and omits to address several issues that have emerged since... Concannon does not directly address issues of representation, including EDI issues and reaching underrepresented or underserved segments of the population. Without this, steering groups tend to contain the 'usual suspects'. This would be an EXCELLENT opportunity for this protocol to ADD to Concannon and suggest something novel."

Response #2:
We agree with the 2022 Declaration of Helsinki position that “groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research.” This is one of the research principles which a dedicated stakeholder group can support.

You are right to say that we have not proposed a clear EDI strategy in advance of establishing the group, but this is because we want the stakeholders themselves to decide upon the group’s responsibilities in accordance with their values (rather than having this enforced a priori by the research team). Hence, we expect the stakeholders to make suggestions along these lines via the e-Delphi exercise, due to the diversity of stakeholders and PPI input in the group. A natural place for these suggestions to be made is Q2b (Role of the group) and Q3 (Engagement with lived experience stakeholders). Thus, we can be reasonably confident that the outcome of the e-Delphi consensus process will ensure that EDI and PPI concerns are addressed, and an action plan published in the planned position statement.

This group will support and promote high-quality research, which involves the promotion of meaningful PPI input and the inclusion of under-represented and underserved groups in the population. However, this stakeholder group will not act as a steering group for any specific research projects. Futhermore, the under-represented and underserved groups in the population differ depending on the cancer type and clinical context, thus the stakeholder group will best effect positive change through its general influence of research steering committees and will seek a diversity of lay and professional voices in its composition.

Comment/Suggestion #3:
"Concannon does not directly address the ethical considerations surrounding steering group recruitment and selection. These are numerous but big ones are duality of relationships for PPI contributors (e.g., serving on the same panel as their health care provider and the power and vulnerabilities this can create); and researchers' duty of care toward vulnerable PPI contributors. Again, an excellent opportunity for the authors to ADD to Concannon."

Response #3:
These ethical concerns are less applicable to this kind of stakeholder group, as it is concerned with shaping overarching research priorities, capacity building and impact strategies rather than acting as a typical project steering committee (handling the nitty gritty details of study design and project management etc.).

For clarity, none of the PPI contributors in this stakeholder group will serve on the same panel as their health care provider (albeit this can occur in project steering committees). Secondly the researchers’ duty of care towards vulnerable PPI contributors doesn’t clearly apply because the “project” they are working on is not a “research study” being “led” by a “researcher”, and to which vulnerable patients, for example, are contributing in a PPI capacity. Rather, in the case of this stakeholder group, PPI contributors and researchers are just two of wider range of possible collaborators, working together to support primary care cancer research at a strategy level.
Comment/Suggestion #1:
"The title implies that the authors are presenting a novel protocol for establishing a stakeholder group. In fact, they are simply presenting Concannon et al's 2012 protocol... The authors are appropriately using a Delphi process to assess and consolidate stakeholder views. However, there is nothing particularly novel about the approach or how they are using it....Therefore, although this will be an interesting study, and I look forward to reading the outcomes, I'm not sure what we are gaining from a published protocol in advance of actual findings. However, SEE BELOW for some suggestions on how this could still be a valuable protocol... Even if it does proceed, a better title would focus on 'Using an e-Delphi process to...' Because that is what this is mostly about."

Response #1:
As you’ve already said, our approach to establishing the stakeholder group involves two aspects: (1) convening a stakeholder group, using a modified Concannon 7P Framework, and (2) exploring stakeholder values in order to guide the process, using an e-Delphi process. Therefore, it feels like the title should not the e-Delphi process without mentioning the 7P Framework also.

We could thus suggest a new title as follows: “Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process”. It might be considered a little longwinded? But if you find a shorter title—e.g., Protocol for Establishing SPARC—a Stakeholder group for Primary cAre Research into Cancer—to be misleading, we would be happy to accept the former.

Our rationale for publishing the protocol is not because of the novelty of the methods (as you rightly point out, we are following a well-established approach). Rather our primary motivation was academic transparency (and the consequent reduction of publication bias/selective reporting), as well as the reduction of research duplication.

Comment/Suggestion #2:
"Although Concannon et al. is a good start and does indeed set the framework for a strong engagement process, it is getting a bit dated in terms of PPI scholarship (2012) and omits to address several issues that have emerged since... Concannon does not directly address issues of representation, including EDI issues and reaching underrepresented or underserved segments of the population. Without this, steering groups tend to contain the 'usual suspects'. This would be an EXCELLENT opportunity for this protocol to ADD to Concannon and suggest something novel."

Response #2:
We agree with the 2022 Declaration of Helsinki position that “groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research.” This is one of the research principles which a dedicated stakeholder group can support.

You are right to say that we have not proposed a clear EDI strategy in advance of establishing the group, but this is because we want the stakeholders themselves to decide upon the group’s responsibilities in accordance with their values (rather than having this enforced a priori by the research team). Hence, we expect the stakeholders to make suggestions along these lines via the e-Delphi exercise, due to the diversity of stakeholders and PPI input in the group. A natural place for these suggestions to be made is Q2b (Role of the group) and Q3 (Engagement with lived experience stakeholders). Thus, we can be reasonably confident that the outcome of the e-Delphi consensus process will ensure that EDI and PPI concerns are addressed, and an action plan published in the planned position statement.

This group will support and promote high-quality research, which involves the promotion of meaningful PPI input and the inclusion of under-represented and underserved groups in the population. However, this stakeholder group will not act as a steering group for any specific research projects. Futhermore, the under-represented and underserved groups in the population differ depending on the cancer type and clinical context, thus the stakeholder group will best effect positive change through its general influence of research steering committees and will seek a diversity of lay and professional voices in its composition.

Comment/Suggestion #3:
"Concannon does not directly address the ethical considerations surrounding steering group recruitment and selection. These are numerous but big ones are duality of relationships for PPI contributors (e.g., serving on the same panel as their health care provider and the power and vulnerabilities this can create); and researchers' duty of care toward vulnerable PPI contributors. Again, an excellent opportunity for the authors to ADD to Concannon."

Response #3:
These ethical concerns are less applicable to this kind of stakeholder group, as it is concerned with shaping overarching research priorities, capacity building and impact strategies rather than acting as a typical project steering committee (handling the nitty gritty details of study design and project management etc.).

For clarity, none of the PPI contributors in this stakeholder group will serve on the same panel as their health care provider (albeit this can occur in project steering committees). Secondly the researchers’ duty of care towards vulnerable PPI contributors doesn’t clearly apply because the “project” they are working on is not a “research study” being “led” by a “researcher”, and to which vulnerable patients, for example, are contributing in a PPI capacity. Rather, in the case of this stakeholder group, PPI contributors and researchers are just two of wider range of possible collaborators, working together to support primary care cancer research at a strategy level.
Competing Interests: None declared. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 19 Dec 2023

Benjamin Jacob, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

19 Dec 2023

Author Response

Comment/Suggestion #1:
"The title implies that the authors are presenting a novel protocol for establishing a stakeholder group. In fact, they are simply presenting Concannon et al's 2012 protocol... The authors ... Continue reading Comment/Suggestion #1:
"The title implies that the authors are presenting a novel protocol for establishing a stakeholder group. In fact, they are simply presenting Concannon et al's 2012 protocol... The authors are appropriately using a Delphi process to assess and consolidate stakeholder views. However, there is nothing particularly novel about the approach or how they are using it....Therefore, although this will be an interesting study, and I look forward to reading the outcomes, I'm not sure what we are gaining from a published protocol in advance of actual findings. However, SEE BELOW for some suggestions on how this could still be a valuable protocol... Even if it does proceed, a better title would focus on 'Using an e-Delphi process to...' Because that is what this is mostly about."

Response #1:
As you’ve already said, our approach to establishing the stakeholder group involves two aspects: (1) convening a stakeholder group, using a modified Concannon 7P Framework, and (2) exploring stakeholder values in order to guide the process, using an e-Delphi process. Therefore, it feels like the title should not the e-Delphi process without mentioning the 7P Framework also.

We could thus suggest a new title as follows: “Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process”. It might be considered a little longwinded? But if you find a shorter title—e.g., Protocol for Establishing SPARC—a Stakeholder group for Primary cAre Research into Cancer—to be misleading, we would be happy to accept the former.

Our rationale for publishing the protocol is not because of the novelty of the methods (as you rightly point out, we are following a well-established approach). Rather our primary motivation was academic transparency (and the consequent reduction of publication bias/selective reporting), as well as the reduction of research duplication.

Comment/Suggestion #2:
"Although Concannon et al. is a good start and does indeed set the framework for a strong engagement process, it is getting a bit dated in terms of PPI scholarship (2012) and omits to address several issues that have emerged since... Concannon does not directly address issues of representation, including EDI issues and reaching underrepresented or underserved segments of the population. Without this, steering groups tend to contain the 'usual suspects'. This would be an EXCELLENT opportunity for this protocol to ADD to Concannon and suggest something novel."

Response #2:
We agree with the 2022 Declaration of Helsinki position that “groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research.” This is one of the research principles which a dedicated stakeholder group can support.

You are right to say that we have not proposed a clear EDI strategy in advance of establishing the group, but this is because we want the stakeholders themselves to decide upon the group’s responsibilities in accordance with their values (rather than having this enforced a priori by the research team). Hence, we expect the stakeholders to make suggestions along these lines via the e-Delphi exercise, due to the diversity of stakeholders and PPI input in the group. A natural place for these suggestions to be made is Q2b (Role of the group) and Q3 (Engagement with lived experience stakeholders). Thus, we can be reasonably confident that the outcome of the e-Delphi consensus process will ensure that EDI and PPI concerns are addressed, and an action plan published in the planned position statement.

This group will support and promote high-quality research, which involves the promotion of meaningful PPI input and the inclusion of under-represented and underserved groups in the population. However, this stakeholder group will not act as a steering group for any specific research projects. Futhermore, the under-represented and underserved groups in the population differ depending on the cancer type and clinical context, thus the stakeholder group will best effect positive change through its general influence of research steering committees and will seek a diversity of lay and professional voices in its composition.

Comment/Suggestion #3:
"Concannon does not directly address the ethical considerations surrounding steering group recruitment and selection. These are numerous but big ones are duality of relationships for PPI contributors (e.g., serving on the same panel as their health care provider and the power and vulnerabilities this can create); and researchers' duty of care toward vulnerable PPI contributors. Again, an excellent opportunity for the authors to ADD to Concannon."

Response #3:
These ethical concerns are less applicable to this kind of stakeholder group, as it is concerned with shaping overarching research priorities, capacity building and impact strategies rather than acting as a typical project steering committee (handling the nitty gritty details of study design and project management etc.).

For clarity, none of the PPI contributors in this stakeholder group will serve on the same panel as their health care provider (albeit this can occur in project steering committees). Secondly the researchers’ duty of care towards vulnerable PPI contributors doesn’t clearly apply because the “project” they are working on is not a “research study” being “led” by a “researcher”, and to which vulnerable patients, for example, are contributing in a PPI capacity. Rather, in the case of this stakeholder group, PPI contributors and researchers are just two of wider range of possible collaborators, working together to support primary care cancer research at a strategy level.
Comment/Suggestion #1:
"The title implies that the authors are presenting a novel protocol for establishing a stakeholder group. In fact, they are simply presenting Concannon et al's 2012 protocol... The authors are appropriately using a Delphi process to assess and consolidate stakeholder views. However, there is nothing particularly novel about the approach or how they are using it....Therefore, although this will be an interesting study, and I look forward to reading the outcomes, I'm not sure what we are gaining from a published protocol in advance of actual findings. However, SEE BELOW for some suggestions on how this could still be a valuable protocol... Even if it does proceed, a better title would focus on 'Using an e-Delphi process to...' Because that is what this is mostly about."

Response #1:
As you’ve already said, our approach to establishing the stakeholder group involves two aspects: (1) convening a stakeholder group, using a modified Concannon 7P Framework, and (2) exploring stakeholder values in order to guide the process, using an e-Delphi process. Therefore, it feels like the title should not the e-Delphi process without mentioning the 7P Framework also.

We could thus suggest a new title as follows: “Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process”. It might be considered a little longwinded? But if you find a shorter title—e.g., Protocol for Establishing SPARC—a Stakeholder group for Primary cAre Research into Cancer—to be misleading, we would be happy to accept the former.

Our rationale for publishing the protocol is not because of the novelty of the methods (as you rightly point out, we are following a well-established approach). Rather our primary motivation was academic transparency (and the consequent reduction of publication bias/selective reporting), as well as the reduction of research duplication.

Comment/Suggestion #2:
"Although Concannon et al. is a good start and does indeed set the framework for a strong engagement process, it is getting a bit dated in terms of PPI scholarship (2012) and omits to address several issues that have emerged since... Concannon does not directly address issues of representation, including EDI issues and reaching underrepresented or underserved segments of the population. Without this, steering groups tend to contain the 'usual suspects'. This would be an EXCELLENT opportunity for this protocol to ADD to Concannon and suggest something novel."

Response #2:
We agree with the 2022 Declaration of Helsinki position that “groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research.” This is one of the research principles which a dedicated stakeholder group can support.

You are right to say that we have not proposed a clear EDI strategy in advance of establishing the group, but this is because we want the stakeholders themselves to decide upon the group’s responsibilities in accordance with their values (rather than having this enforced a priori by the research team). Hence, we expect the stakeholders to make suggestions along these lines via the e-Delphi exercise, due to the diversity of stakeholders and PPI input in the group. A natural place for these suggestions to be made is Q2b (Role of the group) and Q3 (Engagement with lived experience stakeholders). Thus, we can be reasonably confident that the outcome of the e-Delphi consensus process will ensure that EDI and PPI concerns are addressed, and an action plan published in the planned position statement.

This group will support and promote high-quality research, which involves the promotion of meaningful PPI input and the inclusion of under-represented and underserved groups in the population. However, this stakeholder group will not act as a steering group for any specific research projects. Futhermore, the under-represented and underserved groups in the population differ depending on the cancer type and clinical context, thus the stakeholder group will best effect positive change through its general influence of research steering committees and will seek a diversity of lay and professional voices in its composition.

Comment/Suggestion #3:
"Concannon does not directly address the ethical considerations surrounding steering group recruitment and selection. These are numerous but big ones are duality of relationships for PPI contributors (e.g., serving on the same panel as their health care provider and the power and vulnerabilities this can create); and researchers' duty of care toward vulnerable PPI contributors. Again, an excellent opportunity for the authors to ADD to Concannon."

Response #3:
These ethical concerns are less applicable to this kind of stakeholder group, as it is concerned with shaping overarching research priorities, capacity building and impact strategies rather than acting as a typical project steering committee (handling the nitty gritty details of study design and project management etc.).

For clarity, none of the PPI contributors in this stakeholder group will serve on the same panel as their health care provider (albeit this can occur in project steering committees). Secondly the researchers’ duty of care towards vulnerable PPI contributors doesn’t clearly apply because the “project” they are working on is not a “research study” being “led” by a “researcher”, and to which vulnerable patients, for example, are contributing in a PPI capacity. Rather, in the case of this stakeholder group, PPI contributors and researchers are just two of wider range of possible collaborators, working together to support primary care cancer research at a strategy level.
Competing Interests: None declared. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 15 Sep 2023

Desmond Leddin, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15041.r36148

Thank you for the opportunity to review the protocol,
The authors are very well qualified to carry out the work and are in an academic environment which will be supportive.

Is the rationale for, and

Thank you for the opportunity to review the protocol,
The authors are very well qualified to carry out the work and are in an academic environment which will be supportive.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

The rationale is clearly described. The administrative relationship of the proposed new group to the NCRG or All Island CRI is not clear. The authors mention that there are basic science and secondary care research groups. It would be of interest to know how they relate to the NCRG.
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

It is. The authors propose to use a modified 7P structure, which is certainly permissible within the method described by Concannon.
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
- Yes. More detail on how the suggestions from Round 1 will be extracted for presentation in subsequent rounds would be helpful.
- The aims seem to change a little as the process moves to methods.
  - Page 3. Under Aims 2. Edelphi four questions are listed. Relevance and importance, role and scope, engagement, dissemination, advocacy and translation into policy and practice. Arguably this is six questions.
  - Page 5 Edelphi exercise. Same as above
  - Page 5. Stages of the e Delphi exercise lists relevance, scope, role, engagement, and impact.
  - This is somewhat different from the previously listed aims. Benefits for patients may bring advocacy and translation back in and perhaps that is meant by impact? Impact was listed on page 3 under stakeholder objective but not under the eDelphi exercise.

Overall, a well written, and well-constructed proposal. My comments are minor. Thank you for allowing me to read it.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Colon cancer screening, environment and health

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 19 Dec 2023

Benjamin Jacob, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

19 Dec 2023

Author Response
COMMENT #1:
"The aims seem to change a little as the process moves to methods.
- Page 3. Under Aims 2. Edelphi four questions are listed. Relevance and importance,
... Continue reading
COMMENT #1:
"The aims seem to change a little as the process moves to methods.

Page 3. Under Aims 2. Edelphi four questions are listed. Relevance and importance, role and scope, engagement, dissemination, advocacy and translation into policy and practice. Arguably this is six questions.

Page 5 Edelphi exercise. Same as above

Page 5. Stages of the e Delphi exercise lists relevance, scope, role, engagement, and impact.

This is somewhat different from the previously listed aims. Benefits for patients may bring advocacy and translation back in and perhaps that is meant by impact? Impact was listed on page 3 under stakeholder objective but not under the eDelphi exercise."

RESPONSE #1:

We have made slight alterations to the three sections for greater correspondence and clarity:

Page 3 & 5 ("2. e-Delphi exercise") both now read:

“(1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice.”

Page 5 ("Stages of the e-Delphi exercise") now has sub-questions (designated 2(a), 2(b), 4(a) and 4(b)) so as to enable consistency between the numbering schemes in each instance:

“1. Relevance—Why is primary care cancer research important?
2(a). Scope
i. What should be included within the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
ii. What should be excluded from the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
2(b). Role—What kind of things should the stakeholder group do to further the cause of primary care cancer research in Ireland?
3. Engagement—How should a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research engage with those who have a lived experience of cancer?
4(a). Dissemination—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the dissemination of findings?
4(b). Impact—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the translation of research findings into benefits for patients?”
COMMENT #1:
"The aims seem to change a little as the process moves to methods.

Page 3. Under Aims 2. Edelphi four questions are listed. Relevance and importance, role and scope, engagement, dissemination, advocacy and translation into policy and practice. Arguably this is six questions.

Page 5 Edelphi exercise. Same as above

Page 5. Stages of the e Delphi exercise lists relevance, scope, role, engagement, and impact.

This is somewhat different from the previously listed aims. Benefits for patients may bring advocacy and translation back in and perhaps that is meant by impact? Impact was listed on page 3 under stakeholder objective but not under the eDelphi exercise."

RESPONSE #1:

We have made slight alterations to the three sections for greater correspondence and clarity:

Page 3 & 5 ("2. e-Delphi exercise") both now read:

“(1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice.”

Page 5 ("Stages of the e-Delphi exercise") now has sub-questions (designated 2(a), 2(b), 4(a) and 4(b)) so as to enable consistency between the numbering schemes in each instance:

“1. Relevance—Why is primary care cancer research important?
2(a). Scope
i. What should be included within the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
ii. What should be excluded from the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
2(b). Role—What kind of things should the stakeholder group do to further the cause of primary care cancer research in Ireland?
3. Engagement—How should a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research engage with those who have a lived experience of cancer?
4(a). Dissemination—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the dissemination of findings?
4(b). Impact—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the translation of research findings into benefits for patients?”
Competing Interests: None declared. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 19 Dec 2023

Benjamin Jacob, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

19 Dec 2023

Author Response
COMMENT #1:
"The aims seem to change a little as the process moves to methods.
- Page 3. Under Aims 2. Edelphi four questions are listed. Relevance and importance,
... Continue reading
COMMENT #1:
"The aims seem to change a little as the process moves to methods.

Page 3. Under Aims 2. Edelphi four questions are listed. Relevance and importance, role and scope, engagement, dissemination, advocacy and translation into policy and practice. Arguably this is six questions.

Page 5 Edelphi exercise. Same as above

Page 5. Stages of the e Delphi exercise lists relevance, scope, role, engagement, and impact.

This is somewhat different from the previously listed aims. Benefits for patients may bring advocacy and translation back in and perhaps that is meant by impact? Impact was listed on page 3 under stakeholder objective but not under the eDelphi exercise."

RESPONSE #1:

We have made slight alterations to the three sections for greater correspondence and clarity:

Page 3 & 5 ("2. e-Delphi exercise") both now read:

“(1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice.”

Page 5 ("Stages of the e-Delphi exercise") now has sub-questions (designated 2(a), 2(b), 4(a) and 4(b)) so as to enable consistency between the numbering schemes in each instance:

“1. Relevance—Why is primary care cancer research important?
2(a). Scope
i. What should be included within the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
ii. What should be excluded from the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
2(b). Role—What kind of things should the stakeholder group do to further the cause of primary care cancer research in Ireland?
3. Engagement—How should a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research engage with those who have a lived experience of cancer?
4(a). Dissemination—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the dissemination of findings?
4(b). Impact—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the translation of research findings into benefits for patients?”
COMMENT #1:
"The aims seem to change a little as the process moves to methods.

Page 3. Under Aims 2. Edelphi four questions are listed. Relevance and importance, role and scope, engagement, dissemination, advocacy and translation into policy and practice. Arguably this is six questions.

Page 5 Edelphi exercise. Same as above

Page 5. Stages of the e Delphi exercise lists relevance, scope, role, engagement, and impact.

This is somewhat different from the previously listed aims. Benefits for patients may bring advocacy and translation back in and perhaps that is meant by impact? Impact was listed on page 3 under stakeholder objective but not under the eDelphi exercise."

RESPONSE #1:

We have made slight alterations to the three sections for greater correspondence and clarity:

Page 3 & 5 ("2. e-Delphi exercise") both now read:

“(1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice.”

Page 5 ("Stages of the e-Delphi exercise") now has sub-questions (designated 2(a), 2(b), 4(a) and 4(b)) so as to enable consistency between the numbering schemes in each instance:

“1. Relevance—Why is primary care cancer research important?
2(a). Scope
i. What should be included within the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
ii. What should be excluded from the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
2(b). Role—What kind of things should the stakeholder group do to further the cause of primary care cancer research in Ireland?
3. Engagement—How should a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research engage with those who have a lived experience of cancer?
4(a). Dissemination—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the dissemination of findings?
4(b). Impact—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the translation of research findings into benefits for patients?”
Competing Interests: None declared. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 Sep 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 19 Dec 23		read
Version 1 13 Sep 23	read	read

Desmond Leddin, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
Jon Salsberg, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

27 Jan 2024 | for Version 2

Jon Salsberg, Primary Healthcare Research, University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, Ireland

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I am happy with the authors' responses to my comments and suggestions.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

PPI, participatory health research, primary care research, systematic review, community and population health.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

31 Views

18 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

Jon Salsberg, Primary Healthcare Research, University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, Ireland

31 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

PPI, participatory health research, primary care research, systematic review, community and population health.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

19 Dec 2023

Benjamin Jacob, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

Comment/Suggestion #1:
"The title implies that the authors are presenting a novel protocol for establishing a stakeholder group. In fact, they are simply presenting Concannon et al's 2012 protocol... The authors are appropriately using a Delphi process to assess and consolidate stakeholder views. However, there is nothing particularly novel about the approach or how they are using it....Therefore, although this will be an interesting study, and I look forward to reading the outcomes, I'm not sure what we are gaining from a published protocol in advance of actual findings. However, SEE BELOW for some suggestions on how this could still be a valuable protocol... Even if it does proceed, a better title would focus on 'Using an e-Delphi process to...' Because that is what this is mostly about."

Response #1:
As you’ve already said, our approach to establishing the stakeholder group involves two aspects: (1) convening a stakeholder group, using a modified Concannon 7P Framework, and (2) exploring stakeholder values in order to guide the process, using an e-Delphi process. Therefore, it feels like the title should not the e-Delphi process without mentioning the 7P Framework also.

We could thus suggest a new title as follows: “Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process”. It might be considered a little longwinded? But if you find a shorter title—e.g., Protocol for Establishing SPARC—a Stakeholder group for Primary cAre Research into Cancer—to be misleading, we would be happy to accept the former.

Our rationale for publishing the protocol is not because of the novelty of the methods (as you rightly point out, we are following a well-established approach). Rather our primary motivation was academic transparency (and the consequent reduction of publication bias/selective reporting), as well as the reduction of research duplication.

Comment/Suggestion #2:
"Although Concannon et al. is a good start and does indeed set the framework for a strong engagement process, it is getting a bit dated in terms of PPI scholarship (2012) and omits to address several issues that have emerged since... Concannon does not directly address issues of representation, including EDI issues and reaching underrepresented or underserved segments of the population. Without this, steering groups tend to contain the 'usual suspects'. This would be an EXCELLENT opportunity for this protocol to ADD to Concannon and suggest something novel."

Response #2:
We agree with the 2022 Declaration of Helsinki position that “groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research.” This is one of the research principles which a dedicated stakeholder group can support.

You are right to say that we have not proposed a clear EDI strategy in advance of establishing the group, but this is because we want the stakeholders themselves to decide upon the group’s responsibilities in accordance with their values (rather than having this enforced a priori by the research team). Hence, we expect the stakeholders to make suggestions along these lines via the e-Delphi exercise, due to the diversity of stakeholders and PPI input in the group. A natural place for these suggestions to be made is Q2b (Role of the group) and Q3 (Engagement with lived experience stakeholders). Thus, we can be reasonably confident that the outcome of the e-Delphi consensus process will ensure that EDI and PPI concerns are addressed, and an action plan published in the planned position statement.

This group will support and promote high-quality research, which involves the promotion of meaningful PPI input and the inclusion of under-represented and underserved groups in the population. However, this stakeholder group will not act as a steering group for any specific research projects. Futhermore, the under-represented and underserved groups in the population differ depending on the cancer type and clinical context, thus the stakeholder group will best effect positive change through its general influence of research steering committees and will seek a diversity of lay and professional voices in its composition.

Comment/Suggestion #3:
"Concannon does not directly address the ethical considerations surrounding steering group recruitment and selection. These are numerous but big ones are duality of relationships for PPI contributors (e.g., serving on the same panel as their health care provider and the power and vulnerabilities this can create); and researchers' duty of care toward vulnerable PPI contributors. Again, an excellent opportunity for the authors to ADD to Concannon."

Response #3:
These ethical concerns are less applicable to this kind of stakeholder group, as it is concerned with shaping overarching research priorities, capacity building and impact strategies rather than acting as a typical project steering committee (handling the nitty gritty details of study design and project management etc.).

For clarity, none of the PPI contributors in this stakeholder group will serve on the same panel as their health care provider (albeit this can occur in project steering committees). Secondly the researchers’ duty of care towards vulnerable PPI contributors doesn’t clearly apply because the “project” they are working on is not a “research study” being “led” by a “researcher”, and to which vulnerable patients, for example, are contributing in a PPI capacity. Rather, in the case of this stakeholder group, PPI contributors and researchers are just two of wider range of possible collaborators, working together to support primary care cancer research at a strategy level.

View more View less

Competing Interests

None declared.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

35 Views

15 Sep 2023 | for Version 1

Desmond Leddin, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

35 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Thank you for the opportunity to review the protocol,
The authors are very well qualified to carry out the work and are in an academic environment which will be supportive.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

The rationale is clearly described. The administrative relationship of the proposed new group to the NCRG or All Island CRI is not clear. The authors mention that there are basic science and secondary care research groups. It would be of interest to know how they relate to the NCRG.
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

It is. The authors propose to use a modified 7P structure, which is certainly permissible within the method described by Concannon.
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
- Yes. More detail on how the suggestions from Round 1 will be extracted for presentation in subsequent rounds would be helpful.
- The aims seem to change a little as the process moves to methods.
  - Page 3. Under Aims 2. Edelphi four questions are listed. Relevance and importance, role and scope, engagement, dissemination, advocacy and translation into policy and practice. Arguably this is six questions.
  - Page 5 Edelphi exercise. Same as above
  - Page 5. Stages of the e Delphi exercise lists relevance, scope, role, engagement, and impact.
  - This is somewhat different from the previously listed aims. Benefits for patients may bring advocacy and translation back in and perhaps that is meant by impact? Impact was listed on page 3 under stakeholder objective but not under the eDelphi exercise.

Overall, a well written, and well-constructed proposal. My comments are minor. Thank you for allowing me to read it.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Colon cancer screening, environment and health

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

19 Dec 2023

Benjamin Jacob, Department of General Practice, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

COMMENT #1:
"The aims seem to change a little as the process moves to methods.

Page 3. Under Aims 2. Edelphi four questions are listed. Relevance and importance, role and scope, engagement, dissemination, advocacy and translation into policy and practice. Arguably this is six questions.
Page 5 Edelphi exercise. Same as above
Page 5. Stages of the e Delphi exercise lists relevance, scope, role, engagement, and impact.
This is somewhat different from the previously listed aims. Benefits for patients may bring advocacy and translation back in and perhaps that is meant by impact? Impact was listed on page 3 under stakeholder objective but not under the eDelphi exercise."

RESPONSE #1:

We have made slight alterations to the three sections for greater correspondence and clarity:

Page 3 & 5 ("2. e-Delphi exercise") both now read:

“(1) the relevance and importance of primary care focused cancer research; (2) the potential role and scope of the stakeholder group; (3) how best to engage with lived experience stakeholders and healthcare professionals affected by the research; (4) how to encourage the dissemination of results and the translation of findings into practice.”

Page 5 ("Stages of the e-Delphi exercise") now has sub-questions (designated 2(a), 2(b), 4(a) and 4(b)) so as to enable consistency between the numbering schemes in each instance:

“1. Relevance—Why is primary care cancer research important?
2(a). Scope
i. What should be included within the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
ii. What should be excluded from the scope of a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research?
2(b). Role—What kind of things should the stakeholder group do to further the cause of primary care cancer research in Ireland?
3. Engagement—How should a stakeholder group for primary care cancer research engage with those who have a lived experience of cancer?
4(a). Dissemination—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the dissemination of findings?
4(b). Impact—What can this stakeholder group do to encourage the translation of research findings into benefits for patients?”

View more View less

Competing Interests

None declared.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. National Cancer Registry Ireland: Cancer in Ireland 1994-2020: Annual Statistical Report of the National Cancer Registry. Cork, Ireland, 2022. Reference Source

[2] 2. Hofmarcher T, Ericson O, Lindgren P: Comparator Report on Cancer in Ireland–Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines. 2022; Accessed: Apr. 26, 2023. Reference Source

[3] 3. Tilson L, Sharp L, Usher C, et al.: Cost of care for colorectal cancer in Ireland: A health care payer perspective. Eur J Health Econ. 2012; 13(4): 511–524. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. UK Clinical Research Collaboration: UK Health Research Analysis 2018. 2020. Reference Source

[5] 5. Health Research Board (HRB): Annual Report 2021. Dublin, 2022. Reference Source

[6] 6. National Cancer Research Institute: Overview: History of NCRI. NCRI website, 2021; (accessed Nov. 15, 2022). Reference Source

[7] 7. Department of Health: National Cancer Strategy 2017-2026. Dublin, Ireland, 2017. Reference Source

[8] 8. AIl-Island Cancer Research Institute: About AICRI. 2022; (accessed Dec. 20, 2022). Reference Source

[9] 9. Emery JD, Shaw K, Williams B, et al.: The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014; 11(1): 38–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Emery J: Cancer survivorship — the role of the GP. Aust Fam Physician. 2014; 43(8): 521–5. PubMed Abstract

[11] 11. European Commission: Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan: Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Brussels, 2021. Reference Source

[12] 12. O’Shea MT, Collins C: Access to Diagnostics Used to Detect Cancer. 2016. Reference Source

[13] 13. Hogg W, Rowan M, Russell G, et al.: Framework for primary care organizations: the importance of a structural domain. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008; 20(5): 308–313. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Harris M, Vedsted P, Esteva M, et al.: Identifying important health system factors that influence primary care practitioners’ referrals for cancer suspicion: a European cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(9): e022904. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Perry M, Wallace E, et al.: A future in primary care research: A view from the middle. Br J Gen Pract. 2018; 68(674): 440–441. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Mendel P, Gidengil CA, Tomoaia-Cotisel A, et al.: Health Services and Primary Care Research Study: Comprehensive Report. 2021. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Cameron BJ, Bazemore AW, Morley CP: Lost in Translation: NIH Funding for Family Medicine Research Remains Limited. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016; 29(5): 528–530. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Westfall JM, Wittenberg HR, Liaw W: Time to Invest in Primary Care Research—Commentary on Findings from an Independent Congressionally Mandated Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2021; 36(7): 2117–2120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. MacConnachie V: Understanding the primary care research landscape. 2023; Accessed: Apr.05, 2023. Reference Source

[20] 20. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, et al.: A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27(8): 985–991. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] 21. Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, et al.: Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017; 31(8): 684–706. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, et al.: Consensus Methods: Characteristics and Guidelines for Use. Am J Public Health. 1984; 74(9): 979–983. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Black N, Murphy M, Lamping D, et al.: Consensus development methods: a review of best practice in creating clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999; 4(4): 236–248. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, et al.: Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(4): 401–409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A: Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: Moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015; 4(2): 133–145. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Discussion

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Background

Aims and objectives

Methods

1. Convening a stakeholder group for primary care focused cancer research in Ireland

Figure 1. The stakeholders of primary care cancer research, and their role within the proposed group.

2. e-Delphi exercise

Discussion

1. Stakeholder group membership

2. e-Delphi results

3. Other results

Dissemination

Conclusion

Study status

Ethical considerations

Data availability

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Protocol for Establishing a Stakeholder Group for Primary Care Research into Cancer Using a Modified 7P Framework and an e-Delphi Process

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Discussion

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Background

Aims and objectives

Methods

1. Convening a stakeholder group for primary care focused cancer research in Ireland

Figure 1. The stakeholders of primary care cancer research, and their role within the proposed group.

2. e-Delphi exercise

Discussion

1. Stakeholder group membership

2. e-Delphi results

3. Other results

Dissemination

Conclusion

Study status

Ethical considerations

Data availability

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!