scholarly journals Education Leaders’ Perspectives on Special Education Research: A Priority Setting Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (15) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Baumbusch ◽  
Jennifer E.V. Lloyd ◽  
Yu Chyi David Liou ◽  
Danjie Zou
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Policy Development ◽  
Educational Leaders ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Knowledge Mobilization ◽  
Students With Special Needs ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Education Leaders

Research priority setting, an element of knowledge mobilization, makes knowledge users integral to the development of research agendas. To date, the use of research priority setting in educational research has been minimal. The purpose of this study was to explore educational leaders’ perspectives on research priorities in special education. We conducted a cross-sectional research priority setting survey with educational leaders from 60 public school districts in British Columbia, Canada. Seventy-one participants completed the survey. Results of a pre-set list of questions indicated that the top three research priorities were: grade-to-grade transitions, high school graduation, and time to designation. In terms of designation, or student categorization, participants were most interested in “Intensive Behaviour Interventions/Severe Mental Illness.” When asked about other priorities, participants identified research on types of support/interventions. These results have implications for developing a research agenda that can support informed decision-making around policy-development and programming for students with special needs. 

scholarly journals 94 Using Research Priority Setting to Investigate Special Education in British Columbia

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. e39-e39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Baumbusch ◽  
Jennifer E V Lloyd
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
British Columbia ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Educational Leaders ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Students With Special Needs ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Educational Journeys

Abstract Background In a recent school year, nearly 58,000 (10.5%) Kindergarten-Grade 12 students in British Columbia had a special needs designation, according to the BC Ministry of Education (BC MED) Student Statistics 2015/2016. Despite these considerable numbers, we know little about the educational journeys of students with special needs. To help set a research agenda in this area, we undertook a Research Priority Setting (RPS) study, which is an approach used in knowledge translation and exchange research. RPS is a relatively new approach, particularly in educational research, and is used to involve knowledge users early in the research process. It can include a diverse range of methods including surveys, workshops, and Delphi studies. As part of a larger research program to investigate the population-level educational journeys of students with special needs, we employed RPS. Objectives The purpose of this study was to explore educational leaders’ perspectives on research priorities in special education. The specific research questions were: 1. Given a pre-determined set of research areas based upon available population-level administrative data, what are educational leaders’ research priorities? 2. Which specific special education student groups (here, called designations) are educational leaders most interested in learning about through population-based research? 3. Beyond the available administrative data, what additional population-level research priorities do educational leaders identify? Design/Methods We employed a cross-sectional survey design. In December, 2017, we invited public school districts to participate in a survey we created to help us identify research priorities related to the educational journeys of students with special needs and disabilities. The specific needs the BC MED routinely tracks are presented with their respective designation codes in Table 1. The survey invited participants to rank eight specific research areas in order of perceived importance. Then, they were asked to indicate which of the 12 special needs designations were of most interest in relation to the research areas. Finally, the survey included an open-ended question inviting participants to suggest further areas for research. Quantitative results were analyzed using descriptive analyses, including frequency tables, cross-tabulations, and histograms. Qualitative data from the open-ended question was analyzed using content analysis. Results We asked a wide range of education professionals to complete this survey, including: district administrators, district learning support service providers, and school staff. In total, 71 participants volunteered to complete our survey, representing 43 of BC’s 60 public school districts. The average participant had: a master’s degree; a district administrator position; and between 20 and 29 years of educational experience. The majority of participants were experienced in special education. Overall, survey participants agreed on three specific priorities for future research on the educational journeys of students with special needs and disabilities: We then used approved BC MED data to prepare district-specific reports for each of these three topics, with province-wide data included for comparison. In each report, we break down students’ results by their BC MED special needs designation. Conclusion This study is an important step forward in our knowledge about the educational journeys of students with special needs. The results can be useful in guiding policy and program development, both here in British Columbia and beyond. Healthcare providers in pediatrics are in key roles to advocate for supports and resources for this population on their educational journeys.

scholarly journals The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: Identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 379-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jones ◽  
Jaimin Bhatt ◽  
Jonathan Avery ◽  
Andreas Laupacis ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
Kidney Cancer ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Cancer Research Network ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

Culturally Competent Practices and Implications for Special Education Leaders

2019 ◽  
pp. 141-166
Author(s):  
Katherine Sprott ◽  
Clementine Msengi
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
General Education ◽  
Educational Leaders ◽  
Effective Instruction ◽  
Academic Standards ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Culturally Competent ◽  
Education Leaders ◽  
Unites States ◽  
Cultural Frames

The over-identification of minorities in special education in the Unites States continues to exist. Such over-representation separates these students from their general education peers to the degree that they may not have access to challenging academic standards and effective instruction. Factors impacting these students include a systemic lack of understanding of cultural frames of reference and curriculum and leadership issues that influence the referral and placement processes in special education. This chapter will address the five culturally competent practices with regard to inclusion and special education. Implications for educational leaders will be discussed.

scholarly journals Health Research Priority Setting in Uganda: A Qualitative Study Describing and Evaluating the Processes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Kapiriri ◽  
Elizabeth Asege Ekochu ◽  
Harriet Nabudere
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
National Level ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Political Commitment ◽  
Policy Practice ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
National Priority ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background: Over the years, several approaches to health research priority setting (HRPS) have been devised and applied in low-incomes countries for national level research prioritization. However, there is often a disconnect between the evidence that health policymakers require for decision-making and the research that receives funding. There is a need for countries to evaluate their prioritization processes to support strategies to translate priority setting into policy practice. While health research priority setting is continuously carried out in Uganda, these processes are rarely reported on the scholarly literature and have not been evaluated. This study aimed to describe and evaluate HRPS in Uganda. Methods: This was a qualitative case study consisting of document review and key informant interviews with stakeholders who had either directly participated in or had specialized knowledge of HRPS in Uganda.Results: While Uganda has established and legitimized a National health research organization to set health research priorities, coordinate and provide oversight for health research in the country, several institutions independently conduct their own health research priority setting. The evaluation revealed that while the priority setting processes are often based on systematic approaches and tools and tended to be evidence based, most of the prioritization processes lacked stakeholder involvement and implementation. Moreover, the priorities were not publicized and none had mechanisms for appeals or revisions. In only one case were the priorities implemented.Conclusions: The availability of strong political commitment and a national priority setting institution is an opportunity for strengthening health research priority setting. There should be increased support for the institution to enable it to carry out its duties. The institution should not only invest in participatory, systematic health research priority setting and implementation but evaluation as well in order for them to identify areas for improvement.

scholarly journals Methodology and criteria for setting national health research priorities in Bhutan: a workshop report

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-43
Author(s):  
Debbie L. Humphries ◽  
Hannah Ingber ◽  
Mongal Singh Gurung ◽  
Kaveh Khoshnood
Keyword(s):  
National Health ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Priority Setting Process ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Medical University

The Bhutanese health system is committed to providing health services for all citizens and is interested in strengthening the country’s health research capacity. The objectives of this workshop were to understand the range of health research activities in Bhutan; to formulate a prioritized research agenda for the Ministry of Health (MoH); to share challenges, gaps and opportunities in health research; and to provide insights for future prioritization exercises. The MoH partnered with Khesar Gyalpo University of Medical University of Bhutan and USA-based facilitators to develop and pilot a methodology for health research priority setting.  The Bhutan priority setting process was adapted from the Combined Approach Matrix and the Essential National Health Research methods.  The methodology proved successful in the systematic creation of a list of health research priorities. Future priority setting processes will build on this workshop, continuing to refine and strengthen the priority setting process in Bhutan. 

scholarly journals Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Tong ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Sophie Hill ◽  
Andrea Matus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. Trial registration Not applicable.

scholarly journals Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Tong ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Sophie Hill ◽  
Andrea Matus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research(REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

scholarly journals Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Tong ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Sophie Hill ◽  
Andrea Matus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Priority Setting ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Health Research Priority Setting

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders.

scholarly journals Identifying integrated health services and social care research priorities in kidney disease in Wales: research prioritisation exercise

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e036872
Author(s):  
Leah Mc Laughlin ◽  
Susan Spence ◽  
Jane Noyes
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Service Improvement ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Services Delivery ◽  
Health And Social Care

ObjectivesTo identify the shared research priorities of patients, caregivers and multidisciplinary renal health and social care professionals across Wales for integrated renal health and social care in Wales.DesignResearch priority setting exercise adapted from the James Lind Alliance national priority setting partnership framework in UK healthcare.SettingTwo workshops: one in North Wales with patients, caregivers and multidisciplinary renal health and social care professionals and one in South Wales with the Welsh Renal Clinical Network (commissioners of renal services in Wales). Additional input provided from stakeholders via email correspondence and face to face communications.ParticipantsAcademics n=14, patients n=16, family/carers n=6, multidisciplinary renal healthcare professionals n=40, local authority councils n=3, renal charities n=6 wider third sector organisations n=8, renal industries n=4, Welsh government social care n=3, renal service commissioners n=8.Results38 research priority questions grouped into 10 themes were agreed. The themes included: (1) integrating health and social care, (2) education, (3) acute kidney injury, (4) chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease, (5) transplantation, (6) dialysis, (7) personalised medicines, (8) cross-cutting priorities, (9) specific social contexts and (10) transitional services and children. Research questions were broad and covered a range of health and social care topics. Patient and professional perspectives broadly overlapped. Research priority setting activities revealed gaps in knowledge in overall service provision and potential areas for service improvement.ConclusionsMapping priorities in health services and social care highlighted the research needed to support renal health services delivery and commissioning in Wales.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document