Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The National Institute for Health Research Critical Care Research Priority Setting Survey 2018.
Tatham, Kate C; McAuley, Daniel F; Borthwick, Mark; Henderson, Neil G; Bashevoy, Gemma; Brett, Stephen J.
Afiliación
  • Tatham KC; Section of Anaesthetics, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK.
  • McAuley DF; Critical Care & Anaesthetics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Borthwick M; School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Centre for Experimental Medicine, Institute for Health Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
  • Henderson NG; Regional Intensive Care Unit, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK.
  • Bashevoy G; Critical Care, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
  • Brett SJ; National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
J Intensive Care Soc ; 21(3): 198-201, 2020 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32782458
INTRODUCTION: Defining research priorities in intensive care is key to determining appropriate allocation of funding. Several topics were identified from the 2014 James Lind Alliance priority setting exercise conducted with the Intensive Care Society. The James Lind Alliance process included significant (and vital) patient/public contribution, but excluded professionals without a bedside role. As a result it may have failed to identify potential early-stage translational research topics, which are more likely identified by medical and/or academic members of relevant specialist basic science groups. The objective of the present project was to complement the James Lind Alliance project by generating an updated list of research priorities by facilitating academic research input. METHOD: A survey was conducted by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to identify the key research priorities from intensive care clinicians, including allied health professionals and academics, along with any evolving themes arising from translational research. Feasibility of all identified topics were then discussed and allocated to themes by a joint clinical academics/NIHR focus group. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 94 intensive care clinicians (including subspecialists), academics and allied health professions. In total, 203 research questions were identified, with the top five themes focusing on: appropriate case selection (e.g. who and when to treat; 24%), ventilation (7%), sepsis (6%), delirium (5%) and rehabilitation (5%). DISCUSSION: Utilising a methodology distinct from that employed by the James Lind Alliance process, from a broad spectrum of intensive care clinicians/scientists, enabled identification of a variety of priority research areas. These topics can now inform not only the investigator-led research agenda, but will also be considered in due course by the NIHR for potential future funding calls.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Qualitative_research Idioma: En Revista: J Intensive Care Soc Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Qualitative_research Idioma: En Revista: J Intensive Care Soc Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido