Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 May;54(5):341-6.
doi: 10.1038/sc.2015.199. Epub 2015 Nov 10.

Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership

J J van Middendorp  1   2   3 , H C Allison  1   2 , S Ahuja  4 , D Bracher  5 , C Dyson  5 , J Fairbank  6 , A Gall  7 , A Glover  8 , L Gray  9 , W El Masri  10 , A Uttridge  11 , K Cowan  12
Affiliations

Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership

J J van Middendorp et al. Spinal Cord. 2016 May.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Parkes JH, Pyer M, Wray P, Taylor J. Partners in projects: preparing for public involvement in health and social care research. Health Policy 2014; 117: 399–408. - PubMed
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient 2014; 7: 387–395. - PubMed
    1. Petit-Zeman S, Locock L. Health care: bring on the evidence. Nature 2013; 501: 160–161. - PubMed
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect 2014; 17: 637–650. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014; 383: 156–165. - PubMed