A Delphi Survey of Research Priorities and Identified Areas for Collaborative Research in Health Sector Library and Information Services UK

Dwyer (1999) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

health sector library and information services

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Europe - United Kingdom

Why was it conducted at all?

The study was prompted by four factors, namely: (i) the benefits that might accrue from sectoral needs identification in the context of an ever evolving R&D context. (ii) An emerging role for information professionals as research partners in the R&D arena. (iii) The need to address the cross-sectoral and collaborative approach of the current R&D focus in the UK, Europe and USA. (iv) The limited related material found in the literature review outlined below.

What was the objective?

to determine research priorities in the Health Library and Information Services sector in the United Kingdom as to their perceived value for the professional needs and user needs

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 20 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?


How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: Delphi round 1: survey asking participants to identify not more than five burning questions/problems in need of research, 110 items submitted. Step 2: Delphi round 2: survey with 79 items, participants were asked to rate each item and asked to decide on each item's suitability for collaborative research, only items with median rating of 6 or higher remained for next round. Step 3: Delphi round 3: survey with 21 items, participants were asked to re-rate

Which stakeholders took part?

Educationalists, key organizations and representatives from the Health Libraries Group, Libraries for Nursing and University Health Science Libraries professional groups. 34 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Four Library Association journal editors were contacted. Three agreed to participate. The educationalist panel members were selected by contacting a library school offering a health librarianship course. The school was contacted and agreed to participate; to balance this panel grouping a lecturer name from the previously used research conference list of attendees and speakers was selected and agreement to participate was forthcoming. Six randomly selected organizations from the Directory of Medical and Healthcare Libraries in the UK and Republic of Ireland provided the organizations panel grouping. Three agreed to participate.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.