Cargando…

Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities

BACKGROUND: The priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cottey, Laura, Shanahan, Thomas Alexander Gerrard, Gronlund, Toto, Whiting, Caroline, Sokunbi, Moses, Carley, Simon David, Smith, Jason E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10447359/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37491155
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-213019
_version_ 1785094533295374336
author Cottey, Laura
Shanahan, Thomas Alexander Gerrard
Gronlund, Toto
Whiting, Caroline
Sokunbi, Moses
Carley, Simon David
Smith, Jason E
author_facet Cottey, Laura
Shanahan, Thomas Alexander Gerrard
Gronlund, Toto
Whiting, Caroline
Sokunbi, Moses
Carley, Simon David
Smith, Jason E
author_sort Cottey, Laura
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease pandemic and a significant worsening of the crisis in the urgent and emergency care system. Our aim was to review and refresh the emergency medicine research priorities. METHODS: A steering group including patients, carers and healthcare professionals was established to agree to the methodology of the refresh. An independent adviser from the JLA chaired the steering group. The scope was adult patients in the ED. New questions were invited via an open call using multiple communications methods ensuring that patients, carers and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to contribute. Questions underwent minisystematic (BestBETs) review to determine if the question had been answered, and the original 2017 priorities were reviewed. Any questions that remained unanswered were included in an interim prioritisation survey, which was distributed to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Rankings from this survey were reviewed by the steering group and a shortlist of questions put forward to the final workshop, which was held to discuss and rank the research questions in order of priority. RESULTS: 77 new questions were submitted, of which 58 underwent mini-systematic review. After this process, 49 questions (of which 32 were new, 11 were related to original priorities and 6 unanswered original priorities were carried forward) were reviewed by the steering group and included in an interim prioritisation survey. The interim prioritisation survey attracted 276 individual responses. 26 questions were shortlisted for discussion at the final prioritisation workshop, where the top 10 research priorities were agreed. CONCLUSION: We have redefined the priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK using robust and established methodology, which will inform the agenda for the coming years.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10447359
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104473592023-08-25 Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities Cottey, Laura Shanahan, Thomas Alexander Gerrard Gronlund, Toto Whiting, Caroline Sokunbi, Moses Carley, Simon David Smith, Jason E Emerg Med J Original Research BACKGROUND: The priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease pandemic and a significant worsening of the crisis in the urgent and emergency care system. Our aim was to review and refresh the emergency medicine research priorities. METHODS: A steering group including patients, carers and healthcare professionals was established to agree to the methodology of the refresh. An independent adviser from the JLA chaired the steering group. The scope was adult patients in the ED. New questions were invited via an open call using multiple communications methods ensuring that patients, carers and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to contribute. Questions underwent minisystematic (BestBETs) review to determine if the question had been answered, and the original 2017 priorities were reviewed. Any questions that remained unanswered were included in an interim prioritisation survey, which was distributed to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Rankings from this survey were reviewed by the steering group and a shortlist of questions put forward to the final workshop, which was held to discuss and rank the research questions in order of priority. RESULTS: 77 new questions were submitted, of which 58 underwent mini-systematic review. After this process, 49 questions (of which 32 were new, 11 were related to original priorities and 6 unanswered original priorities were carried forward) were reviewed by the steering group and included in an interim prioritisation survey. The interim prioritisation survey attracted 276 individual responses. 26 questions were shortlisted for discussion at the final prioritisation workshop, where the top 10 research priorities were agreed. CONCLUSION: We have redefined the priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK using robust and established methodology, which will inform the agenda for the coming years. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-09 2023-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10447359/ /pubmed/37491155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-213019 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Cottey, Laura
Shanahan, Thomas Alexander Gerrard
Gronlund, Toto
Whiting, Caroline
Sokunbi, Moses
Carley, Simon David
Smith, Jason E
Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities
title Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities
title_full Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities
title_fullStr Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities
title_full_unstemmed Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities
title_short Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities
title_sort refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10447359/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37491155
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2022-213019
work_keys_str_mv AT cotteylaura refreshingtheemergencymedicineresearchpriorities
AT shanahanthomasalexandergerrard refreshingtheemergencymedicineresearchpriorities
AT gronlundtoto refreshingtheemergencymedicineresearchpriorities
AT whitingcaroline refreshingtheemergencymedicineresearchpriorities
AT sokunbimoses refreshingtheemergencymedicineresearchpriorities
AT carleysimondavid refreshingtheemergencymedicineresearchpriorities
AT smithjasone refreshingtheemergencymedicineresearchpriorities
AT refreshingtheemergencymedicineresearchpriorities