Dementia in-patient units (DIU) are mental health wards that care for people living with dementia (PLWD) whose symptoms are causing severe distress or potential risk. DIUs look after some of the most vulnerable and unwell people in society, yet they are environments that are underresearched: a recent systematic review revealed only 36 articles worldwide relating to DIUs. To better understand research priorities in DIUs, we undertook a two-round online Delphi survey of PLWD with experience of DIUs, their carers and professionals who work in DIUs.

Ten research priorities were described and ranked. The top three were how to use non-pharmacological techniques to manage non-cognitive symptoms of dementia, supporting families and better understanding of how to discharge PLWD safely and healthily.

This is the first Delphi consensus to describe DIU research priorities. This paper will help researchers focus on the areas that matter most to people who use DIUs.

The objective is to identify research priorities in prehospital care in Spain.

This was a Delphi-type study of three rounds with a panel of experts made up of members of the Red de Investigación en Emergencias Prehospitalarias (RINVEMER; Prehospital Emergency Research Network) Network and the Sociedad Española de Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (SEMES; Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine) Emergency Secretariat. In the first round, each participant identified up to 15 priorities. In the second round, they scored the 30 thematic areas on a Likert scale. In the third round, they ordered and scored from one to ten the first ten priorities among those that obtained a median greater than or equal to four in the second round. After adding the assigned scores, the ten priorities with the highest total score were obtained.

The ten identified research priorities were: special clinical codes and time-dependent conditions; mass-casualty incident (MCI) coordination and management; innovation in Emergency Medical Services (EMS); human factor in decision making; triage, analysis, and management of calls in the Emergency Call Center; new technologies, telemedicine, and emergencies; adverse events, clinical safety, and quality in emergencies; cardiac arrest; continuous education and training (methodology, quality, and evaluation); and big data and emergencies.

The research priorities perceived by emergency professionals are related to clinical care and organizational aspects of EMS, in addition to the need to incorporate innovative aspects and new data analysis technologies.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a priority for health research. PPI improves the relevance and quality of research. The study aimed to involve service users in identifying research priorities for the service. A two-phase adapted Delphi technique was used to generate a list of research topics from service users in secure in-patient mental health settings and on specialist mental health prison wings. Topic content analysis was undertaken. Service users were further consulted, and research themes were ranked in order of priority.

Of the eight research themes identified, the three given the highest priority by service users were, in descending order, physical health, future plans and moving on, and causes of illness and crime.

Service users are willing to be involved in setting research priorities for mental health services. Through non-tokenistic PPI, service users can uniquely shape the research agenda of mental health services.

To bring together stakeholders in the United Kingdom to establish national priorities for research in single-ventricle heart conditions.

This study comprised two surveys and a workshop. The initial public online survey asked respondents up to three questions they would like answered for research. Responses were classified as unanswered, already answered, or unable to be answered by scientific research. In the follow-up survey, unanswered questions were divided into categories and respondents were asked to rank categories and questions by priority. A stakeholder workshop attended by patients, parents, healthcare professionals, researchers, and charities was held to determine the final list of research priorities.

A total of 128 respondents posed 344 research questions, of which 271 were classified as unanswered, and after removing duplicates, 204 questions remained, which were divided into 20 categories. In the second survey, 56 (49.1%) respondents successfully ranked categories and questions. A total of 39 participants attended the workshop, drawing up a list of 30 research priorities across nine priority categories. The nine priority categories are: Associated co-morbidities; Brain & neurodevelopment; Exercise; Fontan failure; Heart function; Living with a single ventricle heart condition; Management of the well-functioning Fontan circulation; Surgery & perioperative care; and Transplantation, mechanical support & novel therapies.

Through a multi-stage process, we engaged a wide range of interested parties to establish a list of research priorities in single-ventricle heart conditions. This provides a platform for clinicians, researchers, and funders in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to address the most important questions and improve outcomes in these rare but high-impact CHDs.

This study describes findings from an assessment conducted to identify perceived knowledge gaps, information needs, and research priorities among state, territorial, and local public health preparedness directors and coordinators related to public health emergency preparedness and response (PHPR). The goal of the study was to gather information that would be useful for ensuring that future funding for research and evaluation targets areas most critical for advancing public health practice.

We implemented a mixed-methods approach to identify and prioritize PHPR research questions. A web survey was sent to all state, city, and territorial health agencies funded through the Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement program and a sample of local health departments (LHDs). Three focus groups of state and local practitioners and subject matter experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were subsequently conducted, followed by 3 meetings of an expert panel of PHPR practitioners and CDC experts to prioritize and refine the research questions.

We identified a final list of 44 research questions that were deemed by study participants as priority topics where future research can inform PHPR programs and practice. We identified differences in perceived research priorities between PHEP awardees and LHD survey respondents; the number of research questions rated as important was greater among LHDs than among PHEP awardees (75%, n=33, compared to 24%, n=15).

The research questions identified provide insight into public health practitioners’ perceived knowledge gaps and the types of information that would be most useful for informing and advancing PHPR practice. The study also points to a higher level of information need among LHDs than among PHEP awardees. These findings are important for CDC and the PHPR research community to ensure that future research studies are responsive to practitioners’ needs and provide the information required to enhance their capacity to meet the needs of the communities and jurisdictions they serve. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:552–561)

To develop a national nutrition and mental health research agenda based on the engagement of diverse stakeholders and to assess research priorities by stakeholder groups.

A staged, integrated and participatory initiative was implemented to structure a national nutrition and mental health research agenda that included: (i) national stakeholder consultations to prioritize research questions; (ii) a workshop involving national representatives from research, policy and practice to further define priorities; (iii) triangulation of data to formulate the agenda; and (iv) test hypotheses about stakeholder influences on decision making.

Canada.

Diverse stakeholders including researchers, academics, administrators, service providers, policy makers, practitioners, non-profit, industry and funding agency representatives, front-line workers, individuals with lived experience of a mental health condition and those who provide care for them.

This first-of-its-kind research priority-setting initiative showed points of agreement among diverse stakeholders (n 899) on research priorities aimed at service provision; however, respondents with lived experience of a mental health condition (themselves or a family member) placed emphasis on prevention and mental health promotion-based research. The final integrated agenda identified four research priorities, including programmes and services, service provider roles, the determinants of health and knowledge translation and exchange. These research priorities aim to identify effective models of care, enhance collaboration, inform policy makers and foster knowledge dissemination.

Since a predictor of research uptake is the involvement of relevant stakeholders, a sustained and deliberate effort must continue to engage collaboration that will lead to the optimization of nutrition and mental health-related outcomes.

Palliative care research is relatively diverse and prioritizing research in this field is dependent on multiple factors such as complex ethical decisions in designing and conducting the research; access to participants who may be deemed “vulnerable” and an increasingly medically focused approach to care. The aim of this study was to inform organizational decision-making and policy development regarding future research priorities for a hospice service in New Zealand.

A modified three-round Delphi technique was employed. Participants were drawn from one dedicated specialist palliative care service that delivers care in the community, day-care, hospice inpatient, aged residential care, and acute hospital palliative care service. A purposive sample included palliative care staff (n = 10, 18, 9, for rounds 1–3, respectively) volunteers (n = 10, 12, 11); and patients and family carers (n = 6, 8, for rounds 1 and 2). Patients and family carers were not involved in the third round.

At final ranking of six research themes encompassing 23 research topics were identified by staff and volunteers. These were: symptom management; aged care; education; community; patient and family; and bereavement support and young people. Patients and family carers agreed on four themes, made up of 10 research topics. These were: decision-making, bereavement and loss, symptom management; and recognition of need and response of service.

The study generated a rich set of research themes and specific research topics. The perspectives of staff and volunteers are significantly different from those of patients and family members, in spite of the recognition by all concerned that palliative care services work within a philosophy of patient-centered care. Open discussion of ideas has the potential to engage both staff and patients and carers in quality improvement initiatives, and to reinforce the value of research for patient care.

Internationally there is an increasing amount of peer-reviewed literature pertaining to disaster nursing. The literature includes personal anecdotes, reflections, and accounts of single case studies. Furthermore, issues such as the willingness of nurses to assist in disasters, the role of nurses in disasters, leadership, competencies, and educational preparedness for nurses have been the focus of the literature.

The aim of this research was to determine the international research priorities for disaster nursing.

This research used a three-round Delphi technique. The first round used a face-to-face workshop to generate research statements with nursing members of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM). The second and third rounds included the ranking of statements on a 5-point Likert scale with nursing members of WADEM and the World Society of Disaster Nursing (WSDN). Statements that achieved a mean of four or greater were considered a priority and progressed.

Participants were from multiple countries. Research statements were generated in the areas of: education, training, and curriculum; psychosocial; strategy, relationship, and networking; and clinical practice. Psychosocial aspects of disaster nursing ranked the highest, with five statements appearing in the top ten research areas, followed by statements relating to: education, training, and curriculum; clinical practice; and finally, strategy, relationship, and networking.

Future disaster nursing research should focus on the area of psychosocial aspects of disaster nursing, in particular, both the psychosocial needs of a disaster-affected community and the psychosocial wellbeing of nurses who assist in disaster health activities.

RanseJ, HuttonA, JeeawodyB, WilsonR. What Are the Research Needs for the Field of Disaster Nursing? An International Delphi Study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(5):1-7.