Effective stakeholder participation in setting research priorities using a Global Evidence Mapping approach
Effective stakeholder participation in setting research priorities using a Global Evidence Mapping approach
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.002
复制
发表时间：
2013-05-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Gruen, Russell L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Clavisi, Ornella;Bragge, Peter;Gruen, Russell L.
目的：我们提出了一个多步骤的过程，确定优先研究领域的创伤性脑损伤（TBI）患者的康复和长期护理。特别是，我们的目标是（1）确定哪些利益相关者应该参与;（2）确定什么方法是合适的;（3）检查产生研究优先领域的不同标准;（4）测试研究人员，决策者和其他潜在研究用户之间联系和交流的可行性。研究设计和设置：通过初步范围界定会议和初步文献检索，确定和开发了潜在的研究问题，随后举办了一次促进性制图研讨会和一次在线调查。然后根据特定标准（临床重要性、新奇性和争议性）对确定的研究问题进行优先排序。然后，使用通常的搜索、筛选和选择过程，将现有证据映射到高优先级问题。广泛的利益相关者聚集在一个论坛上，以确定未来研究投资的优先研究主题。使用临床和研究的领导者，较小的有针对性的规划研讨会优先考虑具体的研究项目，为每个确定的themes.Results：产生了26个具体的问题TBI康复，其中14个是高优先级。没有一种方法可以识别所有高优先级问题。与使用更广泛的利益相关者参与的方法相比，仅依赖于临床医生和研究人员的观点的方法识别出的高优先级问题较少。这些高优先级问题的证据图产生了一些证据缺口。优先级问题和证据图，然后通知一个研究论坛，确定了12个优先主题为未来的research.Conclusion：我们的研究表明了一个多步骤和多方法的过程，涉及许多不同类型的利益相关者的优先研究，以改善谁遭受创伤性脑损伤的人的康复结果的价值。可以使用多种方法以及联系和交流过程的组合来增强利益相关者的代表性。这一过程可以为研究领域的优先级决定提供信息。(C)2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
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.