AIM: Research funds for cerebral palsy are scarce and competition for them is strong. This study aimed to identify questions for future research that were agreed to be a high priority. METHOD: An expert panel of consumers, researchers, and clinicians was assembled (n=127) and surveyed using a Delphi survey comprising three rounds. In round I, participants identified three important research topics. Three parallel surveys were constructed: (1) consumers; (2) intervention researchers and clinicians; and (3) aetiology and prevention researchers. In rounds II and III, participants rated priorities using a seven-point Likert scale. Questions reaching consensus were itemized and those not reaching consensus were discarded. RESULTS: Consumers identified questions in the themes of prevention/cure, quality of life/community participation, and service provision/intervention. Intervention researchers/clinicians identified questions in the themes of effective outcomes and effective research/services. Aetiology and prevention researchers identified questions in the themes of infection/inflammation, focus on timing, haematology, research tools, neuroregeneration, and genetics. Fifty per cent of the consumers' priorities were also identified by professionals. INTERPRETATION: Research priorities change as evidence is established. Phase II of this project is to develop a web portal with international collaboration. As evidence builds for one research question, it will be added to the web portal and unanswered questions will become the priority.
AIM: Research funds for cerebral palsy are scarce and competition for them is strong. This study aimed to identify questions for future research that were agreed to be a high priority. METHOD: An expert panel of consumers, researchers, and clinicians was assembled (n=127) and surveyed using a Delphi survey comprising three rounds. In round I, participants identified three important research topics. Three parallel surveys were constructed: (1) consumers; (2) intervention researchers and clinicians; and (3) aetiology and prevention researchers. In rounds II and III, participants rated priorities using a seven-point Likert scale. Questions reaching consensus were itemized and those not reaching consensus were discarded. RESULTS: Consumers identified questions in the themes of prevention/cure, quality of life/community participation, and service provision/intervention. Intervention researchers/clinicians identified questions in the themes of effective outcomes and effective research/services. Aetiology and prevention researchers identified questions in the themes of infection/inflammation, focus on timing, haematology, research tools, neuroregeneration, and genetics. Fifty per cent of the consumers' priorities were also identified by professionals. INTERPRETATION: Research priorities change as evidence is established. Phase II of this project is to develop a web portal with international collaboration. As evidence builds for one research question, it will be added to the web portal and unanswered questions will become the priority.
Authors: Iona Novak; Karen Walker; Rod W Hunt; Euan M Wallace; Michael Fahey; Nadia Badawi Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 6.940
Authors: Rachel Gold; Evelyn P Whitlock; Carrie D Patnode; Paul S McGinnis; David I Buckley; Cynthia Morris Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Vera C Kaelin; Erin R Wallace; Martha M Werler; Brent R Collett; Mary A Khetani Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Christopher Morris; Doug Simkiss; Mary Busk; Maureen Morris; Amanda Allard; Jacob Denness; Astrid Janssens; Anna Stimson; Joanna Coghill; Kelly Robinson; Mark Fenton; Katherine Cowan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 2.692