An Examination of the Research Priorities for a Hospice Service in New Zealand: A Delphi Study

de Vries et al. (2016) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

hospice service

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Australia - New Zealand

Why was it conducted at all?

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.

What was the objective?

to inform organizational decision-making and policy development regarding future research priorities for a hospice service in New Zealand

What was the outcome?

a list of 10 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: focus groups: questions for focus groups to be discussed were developed from literature. Step 2: data processing: content analysis: 128 items identified. Step 3: Delphi round 2: participants were asked to rate each topic, 48 most preferred topics selected for round 3. Step 4: Delphi round 3: participants were asked to re-rate

Which stakeholders took part?

Palliative care staff, volunteers, patients, family carers. Delphi round 1: 10 staff members, 10 volunteers and 6 patients and family carers. Delphi round 2: 18 staff members, 12 volunteers and 8 patients and family carers. Delphi round 3: 9 staff members and 11 volunteers in round 3 (no patients and family carers).

How were stakeholders recruited?

Participants were drawn from one dedicated specialist palliative care service that delivers care in the community, daycare, hospice inpatient, aged residential care, and acute hospital palliative care service. A purposive sample of staff (N=10), volunteers (N=10), patients and family members (N=6) were invited from across the hospice and participated in Round 1 of the study. Recruitment of patients and family members was problematic due to the advanced disease of potential recruits and sensitivity to bereavement issues of family members. Consequently, the number of patient and family member participants was smaller than anticipated.

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.