Literature DB >> 28979474

Research priorities by professional background - A detailed analysis of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Nishkantha Arulkumaran1,2, Hannah Reay1,3, Stephen J Brett1,4.   

Abstract

The Intensive Care Foundation, in partnership with the James Lind Alliance, has supported a national project to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. We conducted a secondary analysis to explore differences in priorities determined by different respondent groups in order to identify different groups' perceptions of gaps in knowledge. There were two surveys conducted as part of the original project. Survey 1 comprised a single open question to identify important research topics; survey 2 aimed to prioritise these topics using a 10-point Likert scale. In survey 1, despite clear differences in suggestions amongst the respondent groups, themes of comfort/communication and post-ICU rehabilitation were the within the top 2 suggestions across all groups. Patients and relatives suggested research topics to which they could easily relate, whereas there was a greater breadth of suggestions from clinicians. In survey 2, the number of research priorities that received a mode score of 10 varied from 1 to 36. Patients scored 36 out of the 37 topics with a mode score of 10. All other groups scored topics with more discrimination, with the number of topics with a mode score of 10 ranging from 1 to 20. Differences in the proportions of the representative groups are therefore unlikely to have translated to an impartial conclusion. Clinicians, patients, and family members have jointly identified the research priorities for UK ICM practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adult; consensus; intensive care; research; uncertainty

Year:  2015        PMID: 28979474      PMCID: PMC5606390          DOI: 10.1177/1751143715609954

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc        ISSN: 1751-1437


  8 in total

1.  Learning from aftercare to improve acute care.

Authors:  Timothy S Walsh; Ruth Endacott
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Are We "Closing the Loop" on Meeting the Therapeutic Needs of Critically Ill Patients?

Authors:  Marc M Perreault
Journal:  Can J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2021-07-01

3. 

Authors:  Marc M Perreault
Journal:  Can J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2021-07-01

4.  The National Institute for Health Research Critical Care Research Priority Setting Survey 2018.

Authors:  Kate C Tatham; Daniel F McAuley; Mark Borthwick; Neil G Henderson; Gemma Bashevoy; Stephen J Brett
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2019-07-08

5.  Bereavement in critical care: A narrative review and practice exploration of current provision of support services and future challenges.

Authors:  Natalie A Pattison; Catherine White; Nazir I Lone
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2020-06-08

6.  Engaging veteran stakeholders to identify patient-centred research priorities for optimizing implementation of lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Alice Yan; Katinka Hooyer; Onur Asan; Mark Flower; Jeff Whittle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 7.  Mechanisms of Post-critical Illness Cardiovascular Disease.

Authors:  Andrew Owen; Jaimin M Patel; Dhruv Parekh; Mansoor N Bangash
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-07-15

8.  What are the respiratory health research priorities in Alberta, Canada? A stakeholder consultation.

Authors:  Heather Sharpe; Lisa Cerato; Darlene Derech; Lisa Guirguis; Kathleen Hayward; Tara Lohmann; Joanna E MacLean; Elizabeth Manafo; Janice Paskey; Jananee Rasiah; Mark Rimkus; Syeda Kinza Rizvi; Gerry Robinson; Brent Seefried; Zeeyaan Somani; Mindy Tindall; Harissios Vliagoftis; Sachin R Pendharkar; Michael K Stickland
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 3.006

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.