Advancing the Research Agenda: An Exemplar from Arthritis Care Research

2005 ◽  
Vol 57 (01) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Catherine L. Backman ◽  
Linda C. Li
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 22024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Grimsrud ◽  
Ruanne V. Barnabas ◽  
Peter Ehrenkranz ◽  
Nathan Ford

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
YaseenM Arabi ◽  
Yasser Mandourah ◽  
FahadM Al-Hameed ◽  
Khalid Maghrabi ◽  
MohammedS ALshahrani ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 1251-1258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Mark Hirshon ◽  
Bhakti Hansoti ◽  
Mark Hauswald ◽  
Kinjal Sethuraman ◽  
Nancy Louise Kerr ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 1336-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Stoner ◽  
Prashant Mahajan ◽  
Silvia Bressan ◽  
Samuel H. F. Lam ◽  
Corrie E. Chumpitazi ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy Cashmore ◽  
Daryl J. Higgins ◽  
Leah M. Bromfield ◽  
Dorothy A. Scott

A research-led reform strategy is urgently required in the field of child protection in Australia. While international research can be a valuable resource, a strong research base which is relevant to this country’s needs, legislation and service systems is essential. Two recent audits of Australian research completed over the past decade – one on out-of-home care and the other on child protection more broadly – have highlighted significant gaps in existing research. There is a number of important topics that have not been addressed – as well as an over-reliance on small-scale, qualitative studies and a very low level of funding for research. This paper explores these gaps and identifies crucial areas for development, encompassing: the development of a national child protection and out-of-home care research agenda; adequate funding for research, especially for multi-site, cross-jurisdictional studies; and closer collaboration between researchers, policymakers and practitioners to close the gap between what we know and what we do.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicity Hasson ◽  
Emma Nicholson ◽  
Deborah Muldrew ◽  
Olufikayo Bamidele ◽  
Sheila Payne ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: There has been increasing evidence and debate on palliative care research priorities and the international research agenda. To date, however, there is a lack of synthesis of this evidence, examining commonalities, differences, and gaps. To identify and synthesize literature on international palliative care research priorities originating from Western countries mapped to a quality assessment framework.Methods: A systematic review of several academic and grey databases were searched from January 2008- June 2019 for studies eliciting research priorities in palliative care in English. Two researchers independently reviewed, critically appraised, and conducted data extraction and synthesis.Results: The search yielded 10,235 articles (academic databases, n = 4108; grey literature, n = 6127), of which ten were included for appraisal and review. Priority areas were identified: service models; continuity of care; training and education; inequality; communication; living well and independently; and recognising family/carer needs and the importance of families. Methodological approaches and process of reporting varied. There was little representation of patient and caregiver driven agendas. The priorities were mapped to the Donabedian framework for assessing quality reflecting structure, process and outcomes and key priority areas.Conclusions: Limited evidence exists pertaining to research priorities across palliative care. Whilst a broad range of topics were elicited, approaches and samples varied questioning the credibility of findings. The voice of the care provider dominated, calling for more inclusive means to capture the patient and family voice. The findings of this study may serve as a template to understand the commonalities of research, identify gaps, and extend the palliative care research agenda.


2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gill Lewin ◽  
Elissa Burton ◽  
Pat Sparrow ◽  
Matthew Carroll ◽  
Hal Kendig

2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 320-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Y. Kim ◽  
Matt Lissauer ◽  
Niels Martin ◽  
Karen Brasel

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document