Literature DB >> 23216859

Establishing local priorities for a health research agenda.

Rebecca Whear1, Jo Thompson-Coon, Kate Boddy, Helen Papworth, Julie Frier, Ken Stein.   

Abstract

AIM/
BACKGROUND: To describe the two-stage prioritization process being used by the UK National Institute for Health Research's Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the South-West Peninsula (or PenCLAHRC) - a joint health service and university partnership and reflect on implications for the wider context of priority setting in health-care research.
METHOD: PenCLAHRC's process establishes the priorities of Stakeholders including service users across a regional health system for locally relevant health services research and implementation. Health research questions are collected from clinicians, academics and service users in Devon and Cornwall (UK) using a web-based question formulation tool. There is a two-stage prioritization process which uses explicit criteria and a wide Stakeholder group, including service users to identify important research questions relevant to the south-west peninsula locality.
RESULTS: To date, a wide variety of health research topics have been prioritized by the PenCLAHRC Stakeholders. The research agenda reflects the interests of academics, clinicians and service users in the local area. Potential challenges to implementation of the process include time constraints, variable quality of questions (including the language of research) and initiating and maintaining engagement in the process. Shared prioritization of local health research needs can be achieved between Stakeholders from a wide range of perspectives.
CONCLUSIONS: The processes developed have been successful and, with minor changes, will continue to be used during subsequent rounds of prioritization. Engagement of Stakeholders in establishing a research agenda encourages the most relevant health questions to be asked and may improve implementation of research findings and take up by service users.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Stakeholders; barriers; health services; research prioritization methods; user involvement

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23216859      PMCID: PMC4864394          DOI: 10.1111/hex.12029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  8 in total

1.  Health technology assessment in primary and community care.

Authors:  A Smithies; T Nicholson; K Stein
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  The James Lind alliance: tackling treatment uncertainties together.

Authors:  Katherine Cowan
Journal:  J Ambul Care Manage       Date:  2010 Jul-Sep

Review 3.  Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH.

Authors:  Don Husereau; Michel Boucher; Hussein Noorani
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 4.  Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches.

Authors:  Hussein Z Noorani; Donald R Husereau; Rhonda Boudreau; Becky Skidmore
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 5.  Patients' and clinicians' research priorities.

Authors:  Ruth J Stewart; Jenny Caird; Kathryn Oliver; Sandy Oliver
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Do different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four-arm Delphi study.

Authors:  Christabel Owens; Ann Ley; Peter Aitken
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Revisiting the emergency medicine services for children research agenda: priorities for multicenter research in pediatric emergency care.

Authors:  Steven Zane Miller; Helena Rincón; Nathan Kuppermann
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.451

8.  An implementation research agenda.

Authors:  Martin P Eccles; David Armstrong; Richard Baker; Kevin Cleary; Huw Davies; Stephen Davies; Paul Glasziou; Irene Ilott; Ann-Louise Kinmonth; Gillian Leng; Stuart Logan; Theresa Marteau; Susan Michie; Hugh Rogers; Jo Rycroft-Malone; Bonnie Sibbald
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 7.327

  8 in total
  5 in total

1.  Pharmacy-related research for health in the Arab region: An analysis informed by WHO's global strategy on research for health.

Authors:  Dalia Bajis; Magda Daifi; Mohamed Ezzat Khamis Amin
Journal:  Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm       Date:  2021-12-14

2.  On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap.

Authors:  Jo Cooke; Steven Ariss; Christine Smith; Jennifer Read
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2015-05-07

Review 3.  Individualisation of drug treatments for patients with long-term conditions: a review of concepts.

Authors:  S Denford; J Frost; P Dieppe; Chris Cooper; N Britten
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Missed opportunities for impact in patient and carer involvement: a mixed methods case study of research priority setting.

Authors:  R Snow; J C Crocker; S Crowe
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2015-08-04

5.  Using the Nine Common Themes of Good Practice checklist as a tool for evaluating the research priority setting process of a provincial research and program evaluation program.

Authors:  Rebecca L Mador; Kathy Kornas; Anne Simard; Vinita Haroun
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2016-03-23
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.