Literature DB >> 22819249

Effective stakeholder participation in setting research priorities using a Global Evidence Mapping approach.

Ornella Clavisi1, Peter Bragge, Emma Tavender, Tari Turner, Russell L Gruen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We present a multistep process for identifying priority research areas in rehabilitation and long-term care of traumatic brain-injured (TBI) patients. In particular, we aimed to (1) identify which stakeholders should be involved; (2) identify what methods are appropriate; (3) examine different criteria for the generation of research priority areas; and (4) test the feasibility of linkage and exchange among researchers, decision makers, and other potential users of the research. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Potential research questions were identified and developed using an initial scoping meeting and preliminary literature search, followed by a facilitated mapping workshop and an online survey. Identified research questions were then prioritized against specific criteria (clinical importance, novelty, and controversy). Existing evidence was then mapped to the high-priority questions using usual processes for search, screening, and selection. A broad range of stakeholders were then brought together at a forum to identify priority research themes for future research investment. Using clinical and research leaders, smaller targeted planning workshops prioritized specific research projects for each of the identified themes.
RESULTS: Twenty-six specific questions about TBI rehabilitation were generated, 14 of which were high priority. No one method identified all high-priority questions. Methods that relied solely on the views of clinicians and researchers identified fewer high-priority questions compared with methods that used broader stakeholder engagement. Evidence maps of these high-priority questions yielded a number of evidence gaps. Priority questions and evidence maps were then used to inform a research forum, which identified 12 priority themes for future research.
CONCLUSION: Our research demonstrates the value of a multistep and multimethod process involving many different types of stakeholders for prioritizing research to improve the rehabilitation outcomes of people who have suffered TBI. Enhancing stakeholder representation can be augmented using a combination of methods and a process of linkage and exchange. This process can inform decisions about prioritization of research areas.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22819249     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  18 in total

Review 1.  Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for soft tissue sarcomas.

Authors:  M Ballesteros; N Montero; A López-Pousa; G Urrútia; I Solà; G Rada; H Pardo-Hernandez; X Bonfill
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 2.  Developing a spinal cord injury research strategy using a structured process of evidence review and stakeholder dialogue. Part I: rapid review of SCI prioritisation literature.

Authors:  P Bragge; L Piccenna; J W Middleton; S Williams; G Creasey; S Dunlop; D Brown; R L Gruen
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 2.772

3.  Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review.

Authors:  Eunice C Wong; Alicia R Maher; Aneesa Motala; Rachel Ross; Olamigoke Akinniranye; Jody Larkin; Susanne Hempel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Practice-based research agenda priorities selected by patients: findings from a dental practice-based research network.

Authors:  Naoki Kakudate; Yoko Yokoyama; Futoshi Sumida; Yuki Matsumoto; Joseph L Riley; Valeria V Gordan; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  A Patient and Provider Research Agenda on Diabetes and Hypertension Management.

Authors:  Emily B Zimmerman; Sarah K Cook; Amber D Haley; Steven H Woolf; Sarah K Price
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Quantitative benefit-harm assessment for setting research priorities: the example of roflumilast for patients with COPD.

Authors:  Milo A Puhan; Tsung Yu; Cynthia M Boyd; Gerben Ter Riet
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 7.  What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products.

Authors:  Isomi M Miake-Lye; Susanne Hempel; Roberta Shanman; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-10

8.  Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas.

Authors:  Dyon Hoekstra; Margot Mütsch; Christina Kien; Ansgar Gerhardus; Stefan K Lhachimi
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Comparing cutaneous research funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases with 2010 Global Burden of Disease results.

Authors:  Chante Karimkhani; Lindsay N Boyers; David J Margolis; Mohsen Naghavi; Roderick J Hay; Hywel C Williams; Luigi Naldi; Luc E Coffeng; Martin A Weinstock; Cory A Dunnick; Hannah Pederson; Theo Vos; Christopher J L Murray; Robert P Dellavalle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Patient involvement in research priorities (PIRE): a study protocol.

Authors:  Karin Piil; Mary Jarden
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.