Development of a Community Care Research Agenda for Australia

Lewin et al. (2011) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

community care

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Australia - Australia

Why was it conducted at all?

Living in the community, rather than in residential care, is the expressed preference of the majority of older people. To support this choice nearly a million Australians currently receive assistance via a community care program. Providers and funders of these services are increasingly focused on ensuring that the care provided is of the highest quality, achieves the best outcomes for its recipients and is delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible. The need for evidence-based policy and practice is a common catch-cry. To facilitate this, research needs to be targeted at the key contemporary issues in the sector.

What was the objective?

to develop a Community Care Research Agenda to give direction to research across community-based services for older people for the next 3-5 years

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 30 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

August 2009 - December 2009

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?


How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: Delphi round 1: in form of workshop: to identify key issues/research questions, participants were asked to identify key research issues, questions/topics combined into list, after workshop list circulated for review and augmentation, feedback compiled into list including all identified questions/topics. Step 2: Delphi round 2: to verify starting list: list with 82 research questions/topics grouped into eight major areas, participants were asked to answer whether they believed each item should or should not be included in national community care research agenda, also asked to add any key questions/topics that they thought were missing. Step 3: Delphi round 3: 72 questions/topics including 62 items from round 1 that had been judged by at least 50% of participants as appropriate for inclusion plus another 10 items added by participants, participants were asked to rate the importance of each question. Step 4: Delphi round 4: participants were asked to verify round 2 ratings. Step 5: Delphi round 4: participants were asked to identify and rank the 30 questions/topics that they perceived as highest priority

Which stakeholders took part?

Academics/ researchers, consumers, providers, funders/ program managers/ policymakers, professional organizations/ peak bodies/ unions. 29 participants overall.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Five key stakeholder groups were identified. Six individuals from each group were recruited.

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.