Involving children and young people in paediatric research priority setting: a narrative review

'It's Powerful' The impact of involving children and young people in developing paediatric research agendas: A qualitative interview study

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing consensus that children and young people (CYP) should be involved in matters that concern them. Progress is made in involving CYP in developing pediatric research agendas (PRAs), although the impact of their involvement remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs and assess the extent to which postpatient and public involvement (post-PPI) activities were planned.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews to identify and gain an in-depth understanding of the impact of involving CYP in developing PRAs. The transcripts were uploaded to Atlas.ti to be coded and organised. Dutch-language interviews were analysed and interpreted together with vocational education and training (VET) students. These students were aged between 14 and 18 years and were training to become nurses.

RESULTS

Three CYP and 15 researchers decided to participate. We focused on three categories of impact: agenda-setting impact, individual impact and academic impact. Involving CYP creates a more enriched and clarified agenda. It ensured that both CYP and researchers underwent personal or professional growth and development, it created a connection between the people involved, awareness about the importance of involving CYP and it ensured that the people involved had a positive experience. The participants were unable to indicate the academic impact of their PRAs, but they did understand the key factors for creating it. In addition, the need to measure impact was highlighted, with a particular focus on assessing individual impact.

DISCUSSION

Our study outlines the diverse subthemes of impact that arise from involving CYP in developing PRAs. Despite the potential of research agendas to amplify CYP voices, only a minority of researchers strategized post-PPI activities ensuring impactful outcomes, prompting the need for thorough evaluation of various impact forms and consistent alignment with the overarching goal of transforming the research field.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

We involved VET students in the data analysis and interpretation phase by forming a young person advisory group. The data analysis of the interviews analysed by the VET students revealed four distinct themes: 1. Learnt new knowledge. 2. Learnt to collaborate. 3. Learnt to listen. 4. Assessment of the individual impact.

Research priorities for children's cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.

DESIGN

James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

SETTING

UK health service and community.

METHODS

A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.

PARTICIPANTS

Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population.

RESULTS

Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children's surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was 'can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?'

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified research priorities for children's cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

What matters to you? Engaging with children in the James Lind Alliance Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership

BACKGROUND

Previous priority setting exercises have sought to involve children, but in the final reporting, it is evident that few children had been engaged through the process. A primary aim in the Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership was to find out from children what they want research to focus on. We report on our experience to inform methods of engagement with children in future James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships and similar exercises.

METHODS

We followed the James Lind Alliance process, collecting and shortlisting questions via online surveys with adult survivors of childhood cancer, carers, and professionals, and holding a final workshop. Alongside this, a parallel process to collect and prioritise questions from children was undertaken. We created animations for parents/carers to explain the project and surveys to children, gathered questions via online surveys and held a workshop with children to identify their priorities.

RESULTS

Sixty-one children and young people with cancer and 10 siblings, aged 3-21 years, submitted 252 potential questions/topics via the surveys. Submissions were refined into 24 summary questions. These questions were discussed at a workshop with eight children; they also added more questions on topics of importance to them. Workshop participants prioritised the Top 5 questions; top priority was, 'How can we make being in hospital a better experience for children and young people? (like having better food, internet, toys, and open visiting so other family members can be more involved in the child's care)'. The Top 5 also included cancer prevention, treatments closer to home, early diagnosis, and emotional support. These questions were taken to the final workshop at which the Top 10 priorities were decided, all five children's priorities were reflected in the final Top 10.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated that it is possible to successfully involve children directly in setting priorities for future research. Future priority setting exercises on topics relevant to children, should seek to include their views. The Children's Cancer Top 10 priorities reflect the voices of children and should inform the funding of future research.