Back

Prioritising Research through Engagement with older Adult Care Homes and potential for mapping to existing data sources: the PREACH study

Irvine, L.; Micklewright, K.; Myles, B.; Davies, M.; Killett, A.; Goodman, C.; Burton, J. K.

2026-10-06 geriatric medicine
10.64898/2026.10.01.26364274 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Care home research often fails to address issues that matter most to residents, families, and staff. Priority-setting exercises can help reduce this lack of inclusivity, but few have received significant resident responses. Objectives: To identify research priorities of UK care home stakeholders (including residents; relatives; care staff, managers and owners; healthcare professionals; policymakers and researchers), and to assess whether these priorities can be addressed using existing research datasets. Methods: PREACH was an 18-month research priority-setting study involving 1063 stakeholders, across 50 care homes, including 381 residents. Participants submitted ideas of what care home research should focus on through 1) care home activity sessions or 2) an online survey. Responses underwent content analysis to identify themes, and these themes were mapped against a national repository of care home trial data. Results: Fifty-one themes were identified. The most frequent priority across all stakeholder groups was access to meaningful activities for residents (22%). Relatives and residents emphasised social connection and day-to-day experience, whereas staff more often highlighted system pressures. No stakeholder-prioritised topics were directly addressable using existing secondary datasets. Conclusions: Collaboration with care home teams to reach large numbers of residents offers a practical route to producing more relevant and timely care home research. Care home stakeholders consistently prioritise quality of life, meaningful activity and staffing over disease-specific or health-focused research. Existing research datasets measure relatively few of the priorities identified by residents, highlighting the need for resident-centred outcome measures and data collection.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.