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;17(2):111-116.
doi: 10.1177/1751143715609954. Epub 2015 Oct 30.

Research priorities by professional background - A detailed analysis of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Nishkantha Arulkumaran  1   2 , Hannah Reay  1   3 , Stephen J Brett  1   4 ; JLA Intensive Care Research Priority Setting Partnership
Affiliations

Research priorities by professional background - A detailed analysis of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Nishkantha Arulkumaran et al. J Intensive Care Soc. 2016 May.

Abstract

The Intensive Care Foundation, in partnership with the James Lind Alliance, has supported a national project to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. We conducted a secondary analysis to explore differences in priorities determined by different respondent groups in order to identify different groups' perceptions of gaps in knowledge. There were two surveys conducted as part of the original project. Survey 1 comprised a single open question to identify important research topics; survey 2 aimed to prioritise these topics using a 10-point Likert scale. In survey 1, despite clear differences in suggestions amongst the respondent groups, themes of comfort/communication and post-ICU rehabilitation were the within the top 2 suggestions across all groups. Patients and relatives suggested research topics to which they could easily relate, whereas there was a greater breadth of suggestions from clinicians. In survey 2, the number of research priorities that received a mode score of 10 varied from 1 to 36. Patients scored 36 out of the 37 topics with a mode score of 10. All other groups scored topics with more discrimination, with the number of topics with a mode score of 10 ranging from 1 to 20. Differences in the proportions of the representative groups are therefore unlikely to have translated to an impartial conclusion. Clinicians, patients, and family members have jointly identified the research priorities for UK ICM practice.

Keywords: Adult; consensus; intensive care; research; uncertainty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Research themes – proportion of responses by group.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Results from survey 1 – responses by groups. (a) Patients and family, (b) allied healthcare professional, (c) nurses, (d) doctors.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Number of topics scored with mode 10 by group (survey 2).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Reay H, Arulkumaran N, Brett SJ. Priorities for future intensive care research in the UK: results of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. J Intens Care Soc 2014; 15: 9. - PMC - PubMed