Dataset Information

Identifying top 10 primary care research priorities from international stakeholders using a modified Delphi method.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High quality primary care is fundamental to achieving health for all. Research priority setting is a key facilitator of improving how research activity responds to concrete needs. There has never before been an attempt to identify international primary care research priorities, in order to guide resource allocation and to enhance global primary care. This study aimed to identify a list of top 10 primary care research priorities, as identified by members of the public, health professionals working in primary care, researchers, and policymakers.

Methods

We adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process, to conduct multiple rounds of stakeholder recruitment and prioritization. The study included an online survey conducted in three languages, followed by an in-person priority setting exercise involving primary care stakeholders from 13 countries.

Findings

Participants identified a list of top 10 international primary care research priorities. These were focused on diverse topics such as enhancing use of information and communication technology, and improving integration of indigenous communities' knowledge in the design of primary care services. The main limitations of the study related to challenges in engaging an adequate diversity and number of appropriate stakeholders, particularly members of the public, in aggregating the diverse set of responses into coherent categories representative of the participants' perspectives and in adequately representing the diversity of submitted responses while ensuring research priorities on the final list are sufficiently actionable to guide resource allocation.

Conclusions

The top 10 identified research priorities have the potential to guide research resource allocation, supporting funding agencies and initiatives to promote global primary care research and practice.

SUBMITTER: O'Neill B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6201922 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology.MethodsA three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities.ResultsA total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis?ConclusionsThe results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.

Project description:BackgroundThe Veterans Access Research Consortium (VARC), a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Consortium of Research focused on access to healthcare, has been funded by VA's Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) to develop a research roadmap for healthcare access. The goal of the roadmap is to identify operationally aligned research questions that are most likely to lead to meaningful improvements in Veterans' healthcare access.ObjectivesTo describe the process of soliciting diverse stakeholder perspectives about key priorities on which VA's HSR&D access agenda should focus and identify the results of that process.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi approach to engage researchers and VA operational partners in a process to develop recommendations regarding the access-related research questions VA should prioritize. We then collaborated with three Veteran Engagement Groups (VEGs) across the country to solicit Veterans' reactions to the Delphi results and their perspectives about access-related issues affecting access to VA health care.ResultsThe Delphi panel consisted of 22 research and operational experts, both internal and external to VA. The Delphi process resulted in five research questions identified by the panelists as highest priority for VA to pursue, each representing one of the following domains: (1) measurement of access, (2) barriers to access, (3) equity and subpopulations, (4) effective interventions to improve access, and (5) consequences of poor/better access. Veterans' perspectives focused primarily on the barriers to access domain. Veterans indicated several barriers that might be addressed through research or operational initiatives, including poor communication about services, weak connections to and partnerships with local community care facilities, and poor provision of telehealth resources and education.ConclusionsEngaging multiple methods to solicit stakeholder perspectives enables more nuanced understanding of access-related priorities for VA. Future research should consider utilizing such an approach to identify additional research and/or operational priorities.