Prioritising Research through Engagement with older Adult Care Homes (the PREACH project)

Background

Care home research has grown in recent decades, and data collected through these studies can be repurposed, offering a valuable, low-risk, and cost-effective opportunity for secondary analysis—examining existing data in new ways to generate further insights. The Virtual International Care Homes Trials Archive (VICHTA) brings together data from multiple studies on different care models and health conditions, including information from over 6,000 residents.

Despite this wealth of information, research topics do not always reflect the priorities of care home residents, their families, or staff. Funders emphasise the importance of engaging with these groups to ensure that existing data are used effectively and that research funding is directed appropriately. This project identified what key stakeholders consider most important to learn from research. Priority setting also provided an opportunity to actively engage with care home networks and generate research ideas grounded in lived experience.

Project Aims

The project aimed to achieve the following objectives:

1. To identify and build relationships with key care home stakeholders who could help publicise the project within their networks and support dissemination of results.
2. To identify key research priorities, particularly those of care home residents and their carers, through a combination of online, postal, and in-person engagement.
3. To map identified priorities to data available through the VICHTA trials archive and other secondary data sources.

Project Activity

Step 1: Set-up
An advisory group was established, representing key stakeholders and social care researchers, to strengthen networks and promote priority setting.
A project website (carehomepriorities.com) was developed, providing information about the study, including its purpose, background, and the data available through VICHTA.

Step 2: Gathering priorities
An online survey was conducted for all stakeholders, with a postal version available on request. Resource packs were also distributed to care homes to gather residents’ views on what matters most to them and what future research they would suggest. These activities were facilitated by in-house activity coordinators.

Step 3: Processing priorities
Suggestions were organised into clear summary questions, and emerging themes were identified. Potential research questions were then checked against existing evidence.

Step 4: Mapping to available data
Research priorities were mapped to existing datasets, such as VICHTA, to produce “oven-ready” research ideas. Where priorities could not be addressed using secondary data, they were published to inform and encourage future research.

Outputs

By working closely with individuals who have direct experience of care homes, the project ensured that research questions were relevant and meaningful. A comprehensive list of research priorities was developed, reflecting what stakeholders considered most important. These priorities were shared through social media and circulated among NIHR Policy Research Units, academic journals, sector magazines, newsletters, and webinars to support collaboration.

This approach aimed to advance priority-setting methods by mapping not only against existing evidence but also against available data that could be repurposed to address research questions, ensuring optimal use of publicly funded data.

Research prioritisation plays an important role in minimising research waste and ensuring that resources are directed towards areas of greatest potential benefit. Repurposing existing data represents value for money for funders and the wider public. VICHTA provides substantial data for secondary analysis, and this work enhanced its usefulness by identifying how best to use these resources. Priority setting also ensured that new research questions reflected the needs of key stakeholders in social care, including residents, relatives, staff, care home providers, local authorities, and national policymakers. The resulting priorities were promoted among researchers to encourage further collaboration.

There was a strong emphasis on patient and public involvement throughout the project. In addition to online and postal surveys, direct engagement with care home residents was facilitated by activity coordinators already working within the homes.

Who was involved? 

Lisa Irvine and Kerry Micklewright, University of Hertfordshire
Funded through NIHR Policy Research Unit for Economic methods of evaluation in health and care interventions (EEPRU) (based at University of Sheffield)

Contact

l.irvine@herts.ac.uk