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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |