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

被引:13
作者
Bragge, P. [1 ,2 ]
Piccenna, L. [1 ,2 ]
Middleton, J. W. [3 ]
Williams, S. [4 ]
Creasey, G. [5 ]
Dunlop, S. [6 ]
Brown, D. [7 ]
Gruen, R. L. [8 ,9 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Natl Trauma Res Inst, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[2] Alfred Hosp, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, John Walsh Ctr Rehabil Res, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[4] Spinal Cord Injury Network, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[5] Stanford Univ, Sch Med, Dept Neurosurg, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[6] Univ Western Australia, Sch Anim Biol, Expt & Regenerat Neurosci, Crawley, WA, Australia
[7] Spinal Res Inst, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[8] Monash Univ, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[9] Nanyang Technol Univ, Lee Kong Chian Sch Med, Singapore 639798, Singapore
关键词
QUALITY-OF-LIFE; MEASUREMENT TOOL; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; SEXUAL ACTIVITIES; PEOPLE; HEALTH; ADULTS; INDIVIDUALS; PARTICIPATION;
D O I
10.1038/sc.2015.85
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study design: This is a rapid evidence review. Objectives: The objective of this study was to gain an overview of the volume, nature and findings of studies regarding priorities for spinal cord injury (SCI) research. Setting: A worldwide literature search was conducted. Methods: Six medical literature databases and Google Scholar were searched for reviews in which the primary aim was to identify SCI research priorities. Results: Two systematic reviews were identified-one of quantitative and one of qualitative studies. The quality of the reviews was variable. Collectively, the reviews identified 31 primary studies; 24 quantitative studies totalling 5262 participants and 7 qualitative studies totalling 120 participants. Despite the difference in research paradigms, there was convergence in review findings in the areas of body impairments and relationships. The vast majority of literature within the reviews focused on the SCI patient perspective. Conclusion: The reviews inform specific research topics and highlight other important research considerations, most notably those pertaining to SCI patients' perspectives on quality of life, which may be of use in determining meaningful research outcome measures. The views of other SCI research stakeholders such as researchers, clinicians, policymakers, funders and carers would help shape a bigger picture of SCI research priorities, ultimately optimising research outputs and translation into clinical practice and health policy change. Review findings informed subsequent activities in developing a regional SCI research strategy, as described in two companion papers.
引用
收藏
页码:714 / 720
页数:7
相关论文
共 61 条
[1]  
Access Economics, 2009, EC COST SPINAL CORD
[2]   A global perspective on spinal cord injury epidemiology [J].
Ackery, A ;
Tator, C ;
Krassioukov, A .
JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, 2004, 21 (10) :1355-1370
[3]   Acceptable benefits and risks associated with surgically improving arm function in individuals living with cervical spinal cord injury [J].
Anderson, K. D. ;
Friden, J. ;
Lieber, R. L. .
SPINAL CORD, 2009, 47 (04) :334-338
[4]   Targeting recovery: Priorities of the spinal cord-injured population [J].
Anderson, KD .
JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, 2004, 21 (10) :1371-1383
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2010, INJURY RES STAT SERI
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2011, COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA
[7]  
Bach C A, 1993, Rehabil Nurs, V18, P364
[8]  
Backman C, 2007, INT J DISABIL COMMUN
[9]   Emotional factors and subjective quality of life in subjects with spinal cord injuries [J].
Bénony, H ;
Daloz, L ;
Bungener, C ;
Chahraoui, K ;
Frenay, C ;
Auvin, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, 2002, 81 (06) :437-445
[10]   Health problems of persons with spinal cord injury living in the Netherlands [J].
Bloemen-Vrencken, JHA ;
Post, MWM ;
Hendriks, JMS ;
De Reus, ECE ;
De Witte, LP .
DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2005, 27 (22) :1381-1389