scholarly journals Are we asking the right questions? Working with the LGBTQ+ community to prioritise healthcare research themes

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Eleanor Barker ◽  
Meg Roberts ◽  
Lucy Lloyd ◽  
Clara M. de Barros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Direction ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Services Delivery ◽  
Research Themes

Abstract Background Conversations about research priorities with members of the public are rarely designed specifically to include people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers. Methods Generally, to address this gap, and specifically, to inform future research for CLS, we carried out a rapid review of published research priority sets covering LGBTQ+ topics, and an online workshop to prioritise identified themes. Results Rapid review: results. The rapid review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five addressed transgender and gender non- conforming populations. All of the research priority sets originated from English-speaking, high and middle-income countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), and date from 2016 onwards. Prioritization approaches were wide-ranging from personal commentary to expert workshops and surveys. Participants involved in setting priorities mostly included research academics, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in this review were then grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop. Workshop: results. For the workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert to a public involvement in research matching website to take part in an online discussion workshop. Those that took part were offered payment for their time in preparing for the workshop and taking part. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to a consensus development process and a final ranked list of seven research themes and participants’ experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units added additional context. Conclusions From the workshop the three research themes prioritised were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular challenges / intersectionality of multiple challenges for people identifying as LGBTQ+. Research themes interconnected in many ways and this was demonstrated by the comments from workshop participants. This paper offers insights into why these priorities were important from participants’ perspectives and detail about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise. On a practical level these themes will directly inform future research direction for CLS.

Are we asking the right questions? Working with the LGBTQ+ community to prioritise healthcare research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Crowe ◽  
Eleanor Barker ◽  
Meg Roberts ◽  
Lucy Lloyd ◽  
Clara M de Barros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
Services Delivery ◽  
Research Themes ◽  
The Right

Abstract Conversations about research priorities with members of the public are rarely designed specifically to include people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers. We carried out a rapid review of published research priority sets covering LGBTQ+ topics, and an online workshop. The rapid review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five addressed transgender and gender non- conforming populations. All of the research priority sets originated from English-speaking, high and middle-income countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), and date from 2016 onwards. Prioritization approaches were wide-ranging from personal commentary to expert workshops and surveys. Participants involved in setting priorities mostly included research academics, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in this review were then grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop. For the workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert to a public involvement in research matching website to take part in an online discussion workshop. Those that took part were offered payment for their time in preparing for the workshop and taking part. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to a consensus development process and a final ranked list of seven research themes. Participants’ experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units added additional contexts. These ranged from living with neurodiversity, and disability as well as experiencing social and economic inequalities and multigenerational health issues. From the workshop the three research themes prioritised were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular challenges /intersectionality of people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. Research themes interconnected in many ways and this was demonstrated by the comments from workshop participants. This paper offers insights into why these priorities were important from participants’ perspectives and detail about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise. The workshop outcomes are currently being used to inform research funding applications by CLS.

Using patient and public involvement to identify priorities for research in long-term conditions management

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 612-617
Author(s):  
Sarah Brand ◽  
Louise Bramley ◽  
Eleanore Dring ◽  
Alison Musgrove
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Long Term Conditions ◽  
Research Themes ◽  
Fundamental Research ◽  
Experience Of Illness

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly important in healthcare research. Although this is accepted at the level of individual research studies, it has been less well used in scoping fundamental research priorities. It has been suggested that patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) are well placed to influence research priorities in this area due to their accumulated experience of illness over time. Aims: To obtain PPI in research-priority setting for a group with a special interest in LTC research. Discussion: PPI representatives provided views on issues they thought required further research. The facilitators were able to move from the specifics of these ideas to identify cross-cutting research priorities. Conclusion: It was possible to determine broad research themes despite PPI representatives initially articulating identified issues in very specific terms. Facilitating a better understanding of the research process for PPI representatives would allow their contribution to be more effective. Implications for practice PPI should be considered at the beginning of the process when broad research priorities are considered and before the study design. This is particularly so for broad, non-specialty-focused research themes such as LTCs. More work is required to ensure the views of harder-to-reach groups are included in this type of PPI.

scholarly journals Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Hawarden ◽  
Clare Jinks ◽  
Waheed Mahmood ◽  
Laurna Bullock ◽  
Steven Blackburn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Fragility Fractures ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Delays In Diagnosis

Abstract Summary Four focus groups were conducted with members of the public to identify important areas for future osteoporosis research. Participants identified priorities to increase public awareness of osteoporosis, reduce delays in diagnosis, improve communication between healthcare providers and to improve follow-up and information provision about causes of osteoporosis, medication harms and prognosis. Purpose Patients and the public must be involved in setting research agendas to ensure relevant and impactful questions are prioritised. This study aimed to understand what people living with osteoporosis and fragility fractures felt was important to research, to inform the content of a national survey on research priorities in this area. Methods Focus groups were conducted with members of the public with experience of osteoporosis or fragility fractures. The topic guide was co-developed with a patient and public involvement research user group, and explored participants’ experiences of osteoporosis including diagnosis, management and effect upon their lives, what aspects of their ongoing care was most important to them and what about their care or condition could be improved. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results A total of twenty-three participants were recruited to four focus groups. Analysis identified two main themes: challenges in living with osteoporosis and healthcare services for osteoporosis. Information needs was a further cross-cutting theme. Participants called for increased public awareness of osteoporosis and wanted healthcare services to address conflicting messages about diet, exercise and medication. Participants described long delays in diagnosis, poor communication between primary and secondary care and the need for structured follow-up as important areas for future research to address. Conclusion The findings from this study provide an understanding of research priorities from the perspective of patients and the public, have informed the content of a national survey and have implications for patient education, health services research and policy.

Social Customer Relationship Management

2015 ◽  
pp. 5255-5262
Author(s):  
Mohammad Nabil Almunawar ◽  
Muhammad Anshari
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Web 2.0 ◽  
Customer Relationship Management ◽  
Relationship Management ◽  
Research Direction ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Customer Relationship ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Future Research Direction ◽  
Social Crm

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) can be used by an organization as a tool and strategy in meeting the expectations of their customers. The term Social CRM is an approach that allows intensive interactions between customers, customers and organizations, and customers' interaction with the systems by utilizing Web 2.0. Social CRM offers new capabilities of social networks that provide powerful new approaches to surpass the traditional CRM. The fundamental changes offered by Social CRM are in terms of empowerment, connection, and value generated. An example of Social CRM in healthcare is extending healthcare services through social networks where many kinds of interaction can be supported. The main goal of this chapter is to introduce a promising future research direction, which may shape the future of integrative customer relationship. In this chapter, we examine customers' expectation concerning the process of empowerment, social networks, and participation to make customers more proficient in dealing with their own issues. This chapter also discusses and demonstrates how Social CRM will help customers have greater control in controlling the process of interaction (empowerment) with organizations and among themselves.

scholarly journals Development of research priorities in paediatric pain and palliative care

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Liossi ◽  
Anna-Karenia Anderson ◽  
Richard F Howard ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Future

Priority setting for healthcare research is as important as conducting the research itself because rigorous and systematic processes of priority setting can make an important contribution to the quality of research. This project aimed to prioritise clinical therapeutic uncertainties in paediatric pain and palliative care in order to encourage and inform the future research agenda and raise the profile of paediatric pain and palliative care in the United Kingdom. Clinical therapeutic uncertainties were identified and transformed into patient, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) format and prioritised using a modified Nominal Group Technique. Members of the Clinical Studies Group in Pain and Palliative Care within National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN)-Children took part in the prioritisation exercise. There were 11 clinically active professionals spanning across a wide range of paediatric disciplines and one parent representative. The top three research priorities related to establishing the safety and efficacy of (1) gabapentin in the management of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics, (2) intravenous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the management of post-operative pain in pre-schoolers and (3) different opioid formulations in the management of acute pain in children while at home. Questions about the long-term effect of psychological interventions in the management of chronic pain and various pharmacological interventions to improve pain and symptom management in palliative care were among the ‘top 10’ priorities. The results of prioritisation were included in the UK Database of Uncertainties about the Effects of Treatments (DUETS) database. Increased awareness of priorities and priority-setting processes should encourage clinicians and other stakeholders to engage in such exercises in the future.

scholarly journals Visual Analysis on Information Theory and Science of Complexity Approaches in Healthcare Research

Entropy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyu Wang ◽  
Wang Zhao ◽  
Yongzhong Wang ◽  
Qin Zhao ◽  
Xuejie Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Information Theory ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Temporal Distribution ◽  
Research Direction ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Knowledge Support ◽  
Analytical Tools ◽  
Research Hotspots

In order to explore the knowledge base, research hotspot, development status, and future research direction of healthcare research based on information theory and complex science, a total of 3031 literature data samples from the core collection of Web of Science from 2003 to 2019 were selected for bibliometric analysis. HistCite, CiteSpace, Excel, and other analytical tools were used to deeply analyze and visualize the temporal distribution, spatial distribution, knowledge evolution, literature co-citation, and research hotspots of this field. This paper reveals the current development of healthcare research field based on information theory and science of complexity, analyzes and discusses the research hotspots and future development that trends in this field, and provides important knowledge support for researchers in this field for further relevant research.

scholarly journals Review of the Charging Safety and Charging Safety Protection of Electric Vehicles

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 184
Author(s):  
Linru Jiang ◽  
Xiaohong Diao ◽  
Yuanxing Zhang ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Taoyong Li
Keyword(s):  
Electric Vehicles ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Reference Value ◽  
Research Direction ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Surrounding Environment ◽  
Safety Research ◽  
Safety Protection ◽  
New Energy ◽  
Development And Utilization

With the continuous development of society and the economy and the popularization of the environmental protection concept, more and more people have begun to turn to electric vehicles. The application of electric vehicles can effectively avoid the damage caused by automobile fuel emissions to the surrounding environment and promote the development and utilization of new energy. However, the development of the electric vehicle industry has led to frequent accidents related to charging safety. In order to prevent accidents related to the charging safety of electric vehicles and ensure proper safety of passengers and people, the charging safety and charging safety protection methods of electric vehicles have become the research priorities for scholars. This paper reviewed the existing research results on the charging safety of electric vehicles, analyzed the influencing factors of the charging safety of electric vehicles, summarized the charging safety protection methods, and forecast the future research direction of charging safety, which has reference value and reference significance for the charging safety research of electric vehicles.

scholarly journals The role of cultural, community and natural assets in addressing societal and structural health inequalities in the UK: future research priorities

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L. J. Thomson ◽  
R. Gordon-Nesbitt ◽  
E. Elsden ◽  
H. J. Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Evaluation Methods ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Priority Areas ◽  
Structural Health ◽  
Research Priority ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Reducing health inequalities in the UK has been a policy priority for over 20 years, yet, despite efforts to create a more equal society, progress has been limited. Furthermore, some inequalities have widened and become more apparent, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. With growing recognition of the uneven distribution of life expectancy and of mental and physical health, the current research was commissioned to identify future research priorities to address UK societal and structural health inequalities. Methods An expert opinion consultancy process comprising an anonymous online survey and a consultation workshop were conducted to investigate priority areas for future research into UK inequalities. The seven-question survey asked respondents (n = 170) to indicate their current role, identify and prioritise areas of inequality, approaches and evaluation methods, and comment on future research priorities. The workshop was held to determine areas of research priority and attended by a closed list of delegates (n = 30) representing a range of academic disciplines and end-users of research from policy and practice. Delegates self-selected one of four breakout groups to determine research priority areas in four categories of inequality (health, social, economic, and other) and to allocate hypothetical sums of funding (half, one, five, and ten million pounds) to chosen priorities. Responses were analysed using mixed methods. Results Survey respondents were mainly ‘academics’ (33%), ‘voluntary/third sector professionals’ (17%), and ‘creative/cultural professionals’(16%). Survey questions identified the main areas of inequality as ‘health’ (58%), ‘social care’ (54%), and ‘living standards’ (47%). The first research priority was ‘access to creative and cultural opportunities’ (37%), second, ‘sense of place’ (23%), and third, ‘community’ (17%). Approaches seen to benefit from more research in relation to addressing inequalities were ‘health/social care’ (55%), ‘advice services’ (34%), and ‘adult education/training’ (26%). Preferred evaluation methods were ‘community/participatory’ (76%), ‘action research’ (62%), and ‘questionnaires/focus groups’ (53%). Survey respondents (25%) commented on interactions between inequalities and issues such as political and economic decisions, and climate. The key workshop finding from determining research priorities in areas of inequality was that health equity could only be achieved by tackling societal and structural inequalities, environmental conditions and housing, and having an active prevention programme. Conclusions Research demonstrates a clear need to assess the impact of cultural and natural assets in reducing inequality. Collaborations between community groups, service providers, local authorities, health commissioners, GPs, and researchers using longitudinal methods are needed within a multi-disciplinary approach to address societal and structural health inequalities.

scholarly journals A Systematic Literature Review of Agile Maturity Model Research

10.28945/3666 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 053-073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaughan Henriques ◽  
Maureen Tanner
Keyword(s):  
Software Process Improvement ◽  
Research Direction ◽  
Research Trend ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Models ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Model Research ◽  
Research Themes ◽  
Organizational Focus

Background/Aim/Purpose: A commonly implemented software process improvement framework is the capability maturity model integrated (CMMI). Existing literature indicates higher levels of CMMI maturity could result in a loss of agility due to its organizational focus. To maintain agility, research has focussed attention on agile maturity models. The objective of this paper is to find the common research themes and conclusions in agile maturity model research. Methodology: This research adopts a systematic approach to agile maturity model research, using Google Scholar, Science Direct, and IEEE Xplore as sources. In total 531 articles were initially found matching the search criteria, which was filtered to 39 articles by applying specific exclusion criteria. Contribution:: The article highlights the trends in agile maturity model research, specifically bringing to light the lack of research providing validation of such models. Findings: Two major themes emerge, being the coexistence of agile and CMMI and the development of agile principle based maturity models. The research trend indicates an increase in agile maturity model articles, particularly in the latter half of the last decade, with concentrations of research coinciding with version updates of CMMI. While there is general consensus around higher CMMI maturity levels being incompatible with true agility, there is evidence of the two coexisting when agile is introduced into already highly matured environments. Future Research: Future research direction for this topic should include how to attain higher levels of CMMI maturity using only agile methods, how governance is addressed in agile environments, and whether existing agile maturity models relate to improved project success.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document