Although involvement of the consumer is increasingly being advocated in health related research, it is not welcome universally. Furthermore, the underlying rationale is rarely made explicit. Policy makers, health care professionals, and researchers need to be clear about the benefits and ways of including lay perspectives and the criteria for evaluating these. Examples of lay involvement in setting research agendas, [1][2][3][4] methodological debate, 5 and specific projects 4 6 7 are accumulating, but little clear evidence about the benefits and costs of different ways of incorporating lay input into health services research is available.We outline two basic reasons for incorporating lay perspectives into research and discuss some common objections. A framework is offered to help clarify the dimensions of lay involvement in health research. We use the term "lay" to mean people who are neither health care professionals nor health services researchers, but who may have specialised knowledge related to health. This includes patients, the general public, and consumer advocates.

Tara Lamont and colleagues discuss how researchers can help service leaders to evaluate rapidly changing models of care, with a range of approaches depending on needs and resources

No abstract

No abstract

Since 1991 the NHS has attempted to identify and prioritise its needs for research and development in a systematic manner. This has not been done before and there is little evidence on which to draw. Multidisciplinary expert groups have identified priorities in different topics using explicit criteria and after widespread consultation within the NHS and research community to identify pressing problems and opportunities for research. This paper focuses on a review completed in 1993 to identify research and development priorities for the NHS in relation to the interface between primary and secondary care. The review covered several recent developments which require evaluation. The authors describe the process used to identify research and development priorities in this complex subject and examine the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. This case study should help to stimulate a wider debate on methods of identifying priorities, particularly those using participatory approaches, in research and non-research contexts.

No abstract

Introduction: Translational science has gained prominence in medicine, but there is still much work to be done before scientific results are used optimally and incorporated into everyday health practice. As the main focus is still on generating new scientific data with financial resources primarily available for that purpose, other activities that are necessary in the transition from research to community benefit are considered less needy. The European Statistical Office of the European Commission has recently reported that 1.7 million people under 75 years of age died in Europe in 2016, with around 1.2 million of those deaths being avoidable through effective primary prevention and public health intervention. Therefore, Academia Europaea, one of the five Pan-European networks that form SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies), a key element of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM), has launched a project to develop a model to facilitate and accelerate the utilisation of scientific knowledge for public and community benefit. Methods: During the process, leaders in the field, including prominent basic and clinical researchers, editors-in-chief of high-impact journals publishing translational research articles, translational medicine (TM) centre leaders, media representatives, academics and university leaders, developed the TM cycle, a new model that we believe could significantly advance the development of TM. Results: This model focuses equally on the acquisition of new scientific results healthcare, understandable and digestible summation of results, and their communication to all participants. We have also renewed the definition in TM, identified challenges and recommended solutions. Conclusion: The authors, including senior officers of Academia Europaea, produced this document to serve as a basis for revising thinking on TM with the end result of enabling more efficient and cost-effective healthcare.

No abstract