A multidisciplinary Delphi study: Setting pediatric oncology research priorities

2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-73
Author(s):  
Jami S. Gattuso ◽  
Elizabeth A. Gilger ◽  
Georgette Chammas ◽  
Samuel Maceri ◽  
Nancy K. West ◽  
...  
2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-73
Author(s):  
Jami S. Gattuso ◽  
Elizabeth A. Gilger ◽  
Georgette Chammas ◽  
Samuel Maceri ◽  
Nancy K. West ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela S. Hinds ◽  
Alice Quargnenti ◽  
Mary Sue Olson ◽  
Julie Gross ◽  
Patty Puckett ◽  
...  

1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-67
Author(s):  
Jennifer Eldred ◽  
Jami Gattuso ◽  
Julie Gross ◽  
Marla Hammonds ◽  
Pam Hinds ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Sarah McLachlan ◽  
Hilary Bungay

Abstract Background Consensus methods such as the Delphi technique have been used widely for research priority setting in health care. Within pre-hospital emergency medicine, such approaches have helped to establish national and international research priorities. However, in a dynamic field such as pre-hospital critical care, it is necessary to regularly review the continued relevance of findings. Further, considering the variability between pre-hospital critical care providers, it is also important to determine priorities at the local level. Essex & Herts Air Ambulance (EHAAT) sought to develop a five-year research strategy that aligns with their clinical work streams and organisational priorities. Methods All staff and Trustees were invited to participate in an online Delphi study with three Rounds. The Delphi was administered via email and Online Surveys software. The first Round invited participants to submit up to five research questions that they felt were of greatest importance to EHAAT  to advance the care provided to patients. In Round 2, participants were asked to rate the importance of questions from Round 1, while Round 3 required participants to rank questions that were prioritised in Round 2 in order of importance. Results 22 participants submitted a total of 86 research questions in Round 1, which were reduced to 69 questions following deduplication and refinement. 11 participants rated the importance of the questions in Round 2, resulting in 14 questions being taken forward to Round 3. Following the ranking exercise in Round 3, completed by 12 participants, a top five research priorities were identified. The question deemed most important was “How does a pre-hospital doctor-paramedic team affect the outcome of patients with severe head injuries?”. Conclusions The top five research priorities identified through the Delphi process will inform EHAAT’s research strategy. Findings suggest that there is still work to be done in addressing research priorities described in previous literature.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Weeks ◽  
Dugald Seely ◽  
Lynda Balneaves ◽  
Heather Boon ◽  
Anne Leis ◽  
...  

Objectives: An increasing number of integrative oncology programs are being established across Canada that offer a combination of complementary and conventional medical treatments in a shift towards whole-person cancer care. It was our objective to identify consensus-based research priorities within a coherent research agenda to guide Canadian integrative oncology practice and policy moving forward.Methods: Members of the Integrative Canadian Oncology Research Initiative and the Ottawa Integrative Cancer Centre organized a 2-day consensus workshop, which was preceded by a Delphi survey and stakeholder interviews.Results: Eighty-one participants took part in Round 1 of the Delphi survey, 52 in Round 2 (66.2%) and 45 (86.5%) in Round 3. Nineteen invited stakeholders participated in the 2-day workshop held in Ottawa, Canada. Five inter-related priority research areas emerged as a foundation for a Canadian research agenda: Effectiveness; Safety; Resource and Health Services Utilization; Knowledge Translation; and Developing Integrative Oncology Models. Research is needed within each priority area from a range of different perspectives (e.g., patient, practitioner, health system) and that reflects a continuum of integration from the addition of a single complementary intervention within conventional cancer care to systemic change. Participants brainstormed strategic directions to implement the developing research agenda and identified related opportunities within Canada. A voting process helped to identify working groups to pursue strategic directions within the interest and expertise of meeting participants.Conclusion: The identified research priorities reflect the needs and perspectives of a spectrum of integrative oncology stakeholders. Ongoing stakeholder consultation, including engagement from new stakeholders, is needed to ensure appropriate uptake and implementation of the Canadian research agenda.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 125 (4) ◽  
pp. e876-e883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Unguru ◽  
A. M. Sill ◽  
N. Kamani

2015 ◽  
Vol 62 (8) ◽  
pp. 1337-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Aristizabal ◽  
Jenelle Singer ◽  
Renee Cooper ◽  
Kristen J. Wells ◽  
Jesse Nodora ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e021361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay H Dewa ◽  
Kevin Murray ◽  
Bethan Thibaut ◽  
Sonny Christian Ramtale ◽  
Sheila Adam ◽  
...  

ObjectivePhysical healthcare has dominated the patient safety field; research in mental healthcare is not as extensive but findings from physical healthcare cannot be applied to mental healthcare because it delivers specialised care that faces unique challenges. Therefore, a clearer focus and recognition of patient safety in mental health as a distinct research area is still needed. The study aim is to identify future research priorities in the field of patient safety in mental health.DesignSemistructured interviews were conducted with the experts to ascertain their views on research priorities in patient safety in mental health. A three-round online Delphi study was used to ascertain consensus on 117 research priority statements.Setting and participantsAcademic and service user experts from the USA, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were included.Main outcome measuresAgreement in research priorities on a five-point scale.ResultsSeventy-nine statements achieved consensus (>70%). Three out of the top six research priorities were patient driven; experts agreed that understanding the patient perspective on safety planning, on self-harm and on medication was important.ConclusionsThis is the first international Delphi study to identify research priorities in safety in the mental field as determined by expert academic and service user perspectives. A reasonable consensus was obtained from international perspectives on future research priorities in patient safety in mental health; however, the patient perspective on their mental healthcare is a priority. The research agenda for patient safety in mental health identified here should be informed by patient safety science more broadly and used to further establish this area as a priority in its own right. The safety of mental health patients must have parity with that of physical health patients to achieve this.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document