Emergency Medicine in the Developing World: A Delphi Study

Hodkinson & Wallis (2010) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

emergency medicine

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?


Why was it conducted at all?

Emergency medicine (EM) as a specialty has developed rapidly in the western world, but remains largely immature in developing nations. There is an urgent need for emergency services, but no clear guidelines are available on the priorities for establishing EM in the developing world.

What was the objective?

to establish consensus on key areas of emergency medicine development in developing world settings, with respect to scope of EM, staffing needs, training requirements, and research priorities

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 18 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

June 2008 - March 2009

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?


How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: Delphi round 1: participants were asked to propose issues that should form part of the minimum standards for emergency care in the developing world. Step 2: data processing: responses collated and summarized. Step 3: Delphi round 2: participants were asked to rate the importance of each statement, items reaching positive or negative consensus were not carried forward to round 3. Step: 4: Delphi round 3: statements not reaching consensus were re-sent to participants along with group mean ratings, participants were asked to re-rate

Which stakeholders took part?

Emergency medicine medical doctors. Delphi round 1: 38 participants. Delphi round 2: 50 participants. Delphi round 3: 50 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Potential panel members were identified using various sources: memberships and mailing lists of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP): International Ambassadors listings; Emergency Medicine Society of South Africa (EMSSA) 2007 Conference: Participants; Ethiopian north American Health Professionals Association (ENAHPA); European Society for Emergency Medicine; International Emergency Medicine Special Interest Group of Australasian College of Emergency Medicine (IEMSIG); International Federation of Emer gency Medicine (IFEM); and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM): 2007 Consensus Conference Participants.

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.