Cargando…
Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership
STUDY DESIGN: This is a mixed-method consensus development project. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify a top ten list of priorities for future research into spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: The British Spinal Cord Injury Priority Setting Partnership was established in 2013 and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5399156/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26554273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.199 |
_version_ | 1783230580995915776 |
---|---|
author | van Middendorp, J J Allison, H C Ahuja, S Bracher, D Dyson, C Fairbank, J Gall, A Glover, A Gray, L Masri, W El Uttridge, A Cowan, K |
author_facet | van Middendorp, J J Allison, H C Ahuja, S Bracher, D Dyson, C Fairbank, J Gall, A Glover, A Gray, L Masri, W El Uttridge, A Cowan, K |
author_sort | van Middendorp, J J |
collection | PubMed |
description | STUDY DESIGN: This is a mixed-method consensus development project. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify a top ten list of priorities for future research into spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: The British Spinal Cord Injury Priority Setting Partnership was established in 2013 and completed in 2014. Stakeholders included consumer organisations, healthcare professional societies and caregivers. METHODS: This partnership involved the following four key stages: (i) gathering of research questions, (ii) checking of existing research evidence, (iii) interim prioritisation and (iv) a final consensus meeting to reach agreement on the top ten research priorities. Adult individuals with spinal cord dysfunction because of trauma or non-traumatic causes, including transverse myelitis, and individuals with a cauda equina syndrome (henceforth grouped and referred to as SCI) were invited to participate in this priority setting partnership. RESULTS: We collected 784 questions from 403 survey respondents (290 individuals with SCI), which, after merging duplicate questions and checking systematic reviews for evidence, were reduced to 109 unique unanswered research questions. A total of 293 people (211 individuals with SCI) participated in the interim prioritisation process, leading to the identification of 25 priorities. At a final consensus meeting, a representative group of individuals with SCI, caregivers and health professionals agreed on their top ten research priorities. CONCLUSION: Following a comprehensive, rigorous and inclusive process, with participation from individuals with SCI, caregivers and health professionals, the SCI research agenda has been defined by people to whom it matters most and should inform the scope and future activities of funders and researchers for the years to come. SPONSORSHIP: The NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre provided core funding for this project. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5399156 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53991562017-05-09 Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership van Middendorp, J J Allison, H C Ahuja, S Bracher, D Dyson, C Fairbank, J Gall, A Glover, A Gray, L Masri, W El Uttridge, A Cowan, K Spinal Cord Original Article STUDY DESIGN: This is a mixed-method consensus development project. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify a top ten list of priorities for future research into spinal cord injury (SCI). SETTING: The British Spinal Cord Injury Priority Setting Partnership was established in 2013 and completed in 2014. Stakeholders included consumer organisations, healthcare professional societies and caregivers. METHODS: This partnership involved the following four key stages: (i) gathering of research questions, (ii) checking of existing research evidence, (iii) interim prioritisation and (iv) a final consensus meeting to reach agreement on the top ten research priorities. Adult individuals with spinal cord dysfunction because of trauma or non-traumatic causes, including transverse myelitis, and individuals with a cauda equina syndrome (henceforth grouped and referred to as SCI) were invited to participate in this priority setting partnership. RESULTS: We collected 784 questions from 403 survey respondents (290 individuals with SCI), which, after merging duplicate questions and checking systematic reviews for evidence, were reduced to 109 unique unanswered research questions. A total of 293 people (211 individuals with SCI) participated in the interim prioritisation process, leading to the identification of 25 priorities. At a final consensus meeting, a representative group of individuals with SCI, caregivers and health professionals agreed on their top ten research priorities. CONCLUSION: Following a comprehensive, rigorous and inclusive process, with participation from individuals with SCI, caregivers and health professionals, the SCI research agenda has been defined by people to whom it matters most and should inform the scope and future activities of funders and researchers for the years to come. SPONSORSHIP: The NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre provided core funding for this project. Nature Publishing Group 2016-05 2015-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5399156/ /pubmed/26554273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.199 Text en Copyright © 2016 International Spinal Cord Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Original Article van Middendorp, J J Allison, H C Ahuja, S Bracher, D Dyson, C Fairbank, J Gall, A Glover, A Gray, L Masri, W El Uttridge, A Cowan, K Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership |
title | Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership |
title_full | Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership |
title_fullStr | Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership |
title_full_unstemmed | Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership |
title_short | Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership |
title_sort | top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a british priority setting partnership |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5399156/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26554273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.199 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanmiddendorpjj toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT allisonhc toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT ahujas toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT bracherd toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT dysonc toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT fairbankj toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT galla toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT glovera toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT grayl toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT masriwel toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT uttridgea toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership AT cowank toptenresearchprioritiesforspinalcordinjurythemethodologyandresultsofabritishprioritysettingpartnership |