Creating a Research Agenda and Setting Research Priorities for Clinical Nurse Specialists

For which topic were research priorities identified?

clinical nursing

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - USA

Why was it conducted at all?

It has been said that ‘‘research priorities set today determine health agenda, practices, and technology of tomorrow.''1 In recognition of this, the core competencies for clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) include a research competency, which stipulates that CNSs actively participate in the conduct of research. Hence, the National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists (NACNS) promotes research by its members and supports research relevant to CNS practice. Determining what is relevant to CNSs is elucidated by dissemination of a research agenda.

What was the objective?

to establish research priorities for clinical nurse specialists, approved by the National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists membership and sanctioned by the National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists Board of Directors

What was the outcome?

a list of 8 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

ENHR approach

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: group discussion: exploring patient-centered outcomes that are sensitive to CNS practice. Step 2: survey 1: asking about ways NACNS should support research and what participants thought were high-priority, measurable, CNS-sensitive outcomes. Step 3: proposed model for NACNS research drafted. Step 4: member feedback: survey 2: asking how supportive participants were with each research agenda item

Which stakeholders took part?

National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists (NACNS) members. Survey 2: 298 members.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Participants were recruited via a conference.

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.