scholarly journals Current research priorities for UK occupational physicians and occupational health researchers: a modified Delphi study

2018 ◽  
Vol 75 (11) ◽  
pp. 830-836 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drushca Lalloo ◽  
Evangelia Demou ◽  
Julia Smedley ◽  
Ira Madan ◽  
Kaveh Asanati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Health ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Occupational Physicians ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Modified Delphi Technique ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

ObjectivesStudies identifying national occupational health (OH) research priorities have been conducted in several countries to establish where OH research should be focused and where funding should be targeted. However, the UK findings are now over 20 years old, and OH practice is continuously evolving. The aim of this study was to identify current research priorities for UK occupational physicians (OPs) and occupational health researchers (OHRs).MethodsCurrent research priorities in OH were identified using a modified Delphi technique. This was conducted in two rounds to achieve consensus. Research priorities were rated, and then ranked using questionnaires developed from expert panel discussions, key research topics identified from the medical literature and participant feedback. Overall and intergroup comparisons were completed for the ranking scores.ResultsConsensus among OPs and OHRs was high with almost all (9/10) primary domains rated as ‘very important’ or ‘absolutely necessary’ by more than 54% of respondents. The research priority areas ranked highest were jointly economic evaluation/cost effectiveness studies and disability management followed by occupational disease/injury/illness. Occupational health policy was ranked lowest after sickness absence management and health promotion. The secondary domain analysis identified priority emphasis on mental health and psychosocial hazards within the workplace and the need to further develop evidence-based guidance for clinical OH practice.ConclusionsWe identified the current research priorities for UK OPs and OHRs. The findings will inform future national OH research strategy and support research that addresses important knowledge gaps within OH and other interdisciplinary specialties.

scholarly journals Research and teaching activity in UK occupational physicians

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Lalloo ◽  
E Demou ◽  
N Pahl ◽  
E B Macdonald
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Study ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Continuing Professional Development ◽  
Teaching Activity ◽  
Occupational Physicians ◽  
Research And Teaching ◽  
Core Requirements ◽  
Formed Part ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background For all doctors, including occupational physicians (OPs), research and teaching are considered core requirements of medical education and continuing professional development. Academic skills are also vital to evidence-based practice and advancement of occupational health (OH) as a specialty. In recent years, attention has focussed on the declining UK OH academic base and the research– practice gap, and increased practitioner participation in research is encouraged. Aims To establish a baseline of research and teaching activity among UK OPs, identify related barriers and inform strategies to overcome them. Methods An online survey including specific career profile questions derived from consensus following expert panel discussions. It formed part of a larger Delphi study on UK OH research priorities. Results We received 213 responses, about 18% of 1207 practising UK OPs. Of these, 162 (76%) undertook research at some career-point, of which 44 (27%) were currently research-active. Similarly, 154 (72%) undertook teaching at some career-point, of which 99 (64%) were currently teaching-active. Of those who had never undertaken research (n = 51) or teaching (n = 59), 40 and 42% were interested in doing so, respectively. Key barriers were lack of time and opportunity, the former particularly for respondents practising in industry, where ‘commercial’ demands take priority, rather than healthcare. Conclusions This study establishes a benchmark of academic activity among UK OPs and identifies related barriers. These ‘target’ barriers can shape research funding priorities and education to increase participation and develop the UK OH academic base.

scholarly journals Consensus on research priorities for Essex & Herts Air Ambulance: a Delphi study

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah McLachlan ◽  
Hilary Bungay
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Consensus Methods ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Air Ambulance ◽  
Research Questions

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.

Priorities for child health research across the UK and Ireland

2021 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2021-322636
Author(s):  
Katrina Cathie ◽  
Alastair G Sutcliffe ◽  
Srini Bandi ◽  
David Coghlan ◽  
Stephen W Turner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Child Health ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Phase Study ◽  
Child Health Research ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Multicentre Research

BackgroundThe General and Adolescent Paediatric Research Network in the UK and Ireland (GAPRUKI) was established in 2016. The aims of GAPRUKI are to unite general paediatricians around the UK and Ireland, to develop research ideas and protocols, and facilitate delivery of multicentre research.ObjectivesTo undertake a research prioritisation exercise among UK and Ireland general paediatricians.MethodsThis was a four-phase study using a modified Delphi survey. The first phase asked for suggested research priorities. The second phase developed ideas and ranked them in priority. In the third phase, priorities were refined; and the final stage used the Hanlon Prioritisation Process to agree on the highest priorities.ResultsIn phase one, there were 250 questions submitted by 61 GAPRUKI members (66% of the whole membership). For phase two, 92 priorities were scored by 62 members and the mean Likert scale (1–7) scores ranged from 3.13 to 5.77. In a face-to-face meeting (phases three and four), 17 research questions were identified and ultimately 14 priorities were identified and ranked. The four priorities with the highest ranking focused on these three respiratory conditions: asthma, bronchiolitis and acute wheeze. Other priorities were in the diagnosis or management of constipation, urinary tract infection, fever, gastro-oesophageal reflux and also new models of care for scheduled general paediatric clinics.ConclusionResearch priorities for child health in the UK and Ireland have been identified using a robust methodology. The next steps are for studies to be designed and funded to address these priorities.

scholarly journals A consensus building exercise to determine research priorities for silver trauma

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah Alshibani ◽  
Jay Banerjee ◽  
Fiona Lecky ◽  
Timothy J. Coats ◽  
Rebecca Prest ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Care ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Trauma Centre ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
List Type ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Modified Delphi Technique ◽  
Research Questions

Abstract Background Emergency care research into ‘Silver Trauma’, which is simply defined as major trauma consequent upon relatively minor injury mechanisms, is facing many challenges including that at present, there is no clear prioritisation of the issues. This study aimed to determine the top research priorities to guide future research. Methods This consensus-based prioritization exercise used a three-stage modified Delphi technique. The study consisted of an idea generating (divergent) first round, a ranking evaluation in the second round, and a (convergent) consensus meeting in the third round. Results A total of 20 research questions advanced to the final round of this study. After discussing the importance and clinical significance of each research question, five research questions were prioritised by the experts; the top three research priorities were: What are older people’s preferred goals of trauma care? Beyond the Emergency Department (ED), what is the appropriate combined geriatric and trauma care? Do older adults benefit from access to trauma centres? If so, do older trauma patients have equitable access to trauma centre compared to younger adults? Conclusion The results of this study will assist clinicians, researchers, and organisations that are interested in silver trauma in guiding their future efforts and funding toward addressing the identified research priorities.

scholarly journals A modified Delphi study to gain consensus for a taxonomy to report and classify physical activity referral schemes (PARS)

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Coral L. Hanson ◽  
Emily J. Oliver ◽  
Caroline J. Dodd-Reynolds ◽  
Alice Pearsons ◽  
Paul Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Monitoring And Evaluation ◽  
Health Improvement ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background Physical Activity Referral Schemes (PARS), including exercise referral schemes, are a popular approach to health improvement, but understanding of effectiveness is limited by considerable heterogeneity in reporting and evaluation. We aimed to gain consensus for a PARS taxonomy as a comprehensive method for reporting and recording of such schemes. Methods We invited 62 experts from PARS policy, research and practice to complete a modified Delphi study. In round one, participants rated the need for a PARS taxonomy, the suitability of three proposed classification levels and commented on proposed elements. In round two, participants rated proposed taxonomy elements on an 11-point Likert scale. Elements scoring a median of ≥7, indicating high agreement, were included in the final taxonomy. Results Of those invited, 47 (75.8%) participated in round one, with high retention in round two (n = 43; 91.5%). 42 were UK-based, meaning the resultant taxonomy has been scrutinised for fit to the UK context only. The study gained consensus for a three-level taxonomy: Level 1: PARS classification (primary classification, provider, setting, conditions accepted [have or at risk of], activity type and funding). Level 2: scheme characteristics (staff structure, staff qualifications, behaviour change theories, behaviour change techniques, referral source, referrers, referral process, scheme duration, session frequency, session length, session times, session type, exit routes, action in case of non-attendance, baseline assessment, exit assessment, feedback to referrer and exclusion criteria) and Level 3: participant measures (demographics, monitoring and evaluation, and measures of change). Conclusion Using a modified Delphi method, this study developed UK-based consensus on a PARS classification taxonomy. We encourage PARS practitioners and public health colleagues, especially those working with similar service models internationally, to test, refine and use this taxonomy to inform policy and practice.

scholarly journals Research priorities of the Canadian chiropractic profession: a consensus study using a modified Delphi technique

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon D. French ◽  
Peter J. H. Beliveau ◽  
Paul Bruno ◽  
Steven R. Passmore ◽  
Jill A. Hayden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Technique ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Chiropractic Profession ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Modified Delphi Technique

scholarly journals Expert opinion on the UK standard of care for haemophilia patients with inhibitors: a modified Delphi consensus study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204062072110070
Author(s):  
Kate Khair ◽  
Elizabeth Chalmers ◽  
Thuvia Flannery ◽  
Annabel Griffiths ◽  
Felicity Rowley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Study ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Tolerance Induction ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Bypassing Agents ◽  
The Uk

Background and Aims: Despite advances in haemophilia care, inhibitor development remains a significant complication. Although viable treatment options exist, there is some divergence of opinion in the appropriate standard approach to care and goals of treatment. The aim of this study was to assess consensus on United Kingdom (UK) standard of care for child and adult haemophilia patients with inhibitors. Methods: A modified Delphi study was conducted using a two-round online survey. A haemophilia expert steering committee and published literature informed the Round 1 questionnaire. Invited participants included haematologists, haemophilia nurses and physiotherapists who had treated at least one haemophilia patient with inhibitors in the past 5 years. Consensus for 6-point Likert scale questions was pre-defined as ⩾70% participants selecting 1–2 (disagreement) or 5–6 (agreement). Results: In all, 46.7% and 35.9% questions achieved consensus in Rounds 1 ( n = 41) and 2 ( n = 34), respectively. Consensus was reached on the importance of improving quality of life (QoL) and reaching clinical goals such as bleed prevention, eradication of inhibitors and pain management. There was agreement on criteria constituting adequate/inadequate responses to immune tolerance induction (ITI) and the appropriate factor VIII dose to address suboptimal ITI response. Opinions varied on treatment aims for adults and children/adolescents, when to offer prophylaxis with bypassing agents and expectations of prophylaxis. Consensus was also lacking on appropriate treatment for mild/moderate patients with inhibitors. Conclusion: UK healthcare professionals appear to be aligned on the clinical goals and role of ITI when managing haemophilia patients with inhibitors, although novel treatment developments may require reassessment of these goals. Lack of consensus on prophylaxis with bypassing agents and management of mild/moderate cases identifies a need for further research to establish more comprehensive, evidence-based treatment guidance, particularly for those patients who are unable/prefer not to receive non-factor therapies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document