An International eDelphi Study Identifying the Research and Education Priorities in Wound Management and Tissue Repair

Cowman et al. (2012) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

wound management and tissue repair

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

international

Why was it conducted at all?

A compelling reason for the study is the lack of an agreed list of priorities for wound care research and education. Furthermore, there is a growth in the prevalence of chronic wounds, a growth in wound care products and marketing, and an increase in clinician attendance at conferences and education programmes.

What was the objective?

to incorporate an international and multidisciplinary consensus in the determination of the research and education priorities for wound healing and tissue repair

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 10 research areas

How long did the research prioritization take?

November 2008 - April 2009

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

Delphi

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: Delphi round 1: participants were asked to list their opinion on the topic in question and to donate as many opinions as possible so as to maximize the chance of covering the most important opinions and issues, 1830 research priorities and 934 education priorities submitted. Step 2: data processing: content analysis: resulting in 35 research priorities and 30 education priorities. Step 3: Delphi round 2: participants were asked to rate priorities. Step 4: Delphi round 3: participants were asked to re-rate based on group mean ratings.

Which stakeholders took part?

Nurses, podiatry, academia, medical doctors, surgeons, micro-biologists, health economics, dietetics, health research. Delphi round 1: 205 participants. Delphi round 2: 162 participants. Delphi round 3: 80 participants. Delphi round 4: 80 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

An email of introduction was sent to 37 wound care organizations internationally and to 70 known wound care contacts. The organizations were requested to forward the email to each of its members.

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.