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.

imProving Outcomes after STroke clinical pilot trial protocol

RATIONALE

One in three patients experience depression after stroke and this risk is consistent over time. A strategy to prevent depression that could be economically delivered to most stroke patients and ideally which also has a low likelihood of adverse events needs to be developed and evaluated. Aims POST aims to determine whether a simple intervention (postcards) prevents depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression rating Scale, HADS depression subscale score > or =8) in patients with a recent stroke. Secondary end-points include reduced anxiety (HADS anxiety subscale score > or =8) and improved health-related quality of life in patients with a recent stroke.

DESIGN

A single-centre randomised, double-blind, pilot trial to prevent depression in patients with a recent (within 8 weeks) stroke presenting to hospital. Patients will be enrolled over 12 months and randomised to receive three trial-specific assessments (baseline, 3- and 6-month assessments of mood, HRQoL and social functioning), or three trial-specific assessments plus a postcard sent centrally in a sealed envelope at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 months after discharge from hospital. Blinded follow-up telephone assessments will be conducted for both groups. STUDY OUTCOMES AND SAMPLE SIZE: For the primary end-point the POST trial will have 80% power to detect a relative risk of 0.4 given an incidence of depression of 30%. For the secondary aims POST has 90% power to detect a difference of 3 points on the HADS depression subscale (assuming a standard deviation of 6 points) between randomised groups. This includes an inflation factor of 15% to account for patients lost to follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Evidence of efficacy will determine whether a multi-centre, international trial is warranted.