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

被引:43
|
作者
Clavisi, Ornella [1 ,2 ]
Bragge, Peter [1 ,2 ]
Tavender, Emma [1 ,2 ]
Turner, Tari [3 ]
Gruen, Russell L. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Alfred Hosp, Dept Surg, Natl Trauma Res Inst, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[3] Monash Univ, Australasian Cochrane Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Preventat Med, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Prioritization; Traumatic brain injury; Research funding; Evidence mapping; Research gaps; Rehabilitation; TRAUMATIC BRAIN-INJURY; HEALTH; REHABILITATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.002
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:496 / 502
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] GLOBAL DRIVERS SETTING DESERTIFICATION RESEARCH PRIORITIES: INSIGHTS FROM A STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION FORUM
    Bisaro, Alexander
    Kirk, Michael
    Zdruli, Pandi
    Zimmermann, Willi
    LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 2014, 25 (01) : 5 - 16
  • [2] An approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and middle-income countries
    Rehfuess, Eva A.
    Durao, Solange
    Kyamanywa, Patrick
    Meerpohl, Joerg J.
    Young, Taryn
    Rohwer, Anke
    BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 2016, 94 (04) : 297 - 305
  • [3] Setting research priorities in tobacco control: a stakeholder engagement project
    Lindson, Nicola
    Richards-Doran, Dan
    Heath, Laura
    Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie
    ADDICTION, 2017, 112 (12) : 2257 - 2271
  • [4] Setting priorities for global mental health research
    Tomlinson, Mark
    Rudan, Igor
    Saxena, Shekhar
    Swartz, Leslie
    Tsai, Alexander C.
    Patel, Vikram
    BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 2009, 87 (06) : 438 - 446
  • [5] Setting biomedical research priorities: Justice, science, and public participation
    Resnik, D
    KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL, 2001, 11 (02) : 181 - 204
  • [6] Setting priorities for dementia research: a global health perspective
    Albanese, E.
    Shah, H.
    Duggan, C.
    Langa, K.
    Snyder, H.
    Rudan, I.
    Dua, T.
    TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH, 2015, 20 : 3 - 4
  • [7] Valuing stakeholder input in setting research priorities for sustainable egg production.
    Swanson, J. C.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2010, 93 : 832 - 833
  • [8] Global emergency medicine research priorities: a mapping review
    Kim, Erin
    Mahajan, Prashant
    Barousse, Chris
    Kumar, Vijaya A.
    Chong, Shu-ling
    Belle, Apoorva
    Roth, Dominik
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2025, 32 (01) : 12 - 21
  • [9] Setting research priorities by applying the combined approach matrix
    Ghaffar, Abdul
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2009, 129 (04) : 368 - 375
  • [10] Setting global health research priorities - Ethics should also guide global health research
    Pang, TK
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7403): : 1399 - 1399