Identification of Translational Dermatology Research Priorities in the U.K.: Results of an Electronic Delphi Exercise

Healy et al. (2015) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

translational dermatology

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Europe - United Kingdom

Why was it conducted at all?

Translational research is the direct application of basic and applied research to patient care. It is estimated that there are at least 2000 different skin diseases; thus, there are considerable challenges in seeking to undertake research on each of these disorders.

What was the objective?

to generate a list of translational dermatology research questions that are regarded as a priority for further investigations

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 30 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

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 provide up to 15 questions about translational research topics covering the breadth of dermatology across four categories, participants encouraged to request input from colleagues within their departments, 240 questions submitted. Step 2: data processing: duplicate questions removed, 228 questions remaining. Step 3: Delphi round 2: participants were asked to rate each question. Step 4: Delphi round 3: to minimize participant burden participants were provided with the top questions (mean score ≥ 3.0) identified in each of the four categories and asked to review mean and median ratings and asked to revise own rating if needed

Which stakeholders took part?

Researchers, clinicians, patients, policymakers. Delphi round 1: 19 participants. Delphi round 2: 27 participants. Delphi round 3: 23 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Individuals were identified by the steering group of UK TREND and invited to participate in the Delphi expert panel because they had extensive experience in clinical dermatology and translational research (17 senior clinical academic dermatologists), clinical dermatology (four National Health Service consultant dermatologists) or in translational research in dermatology (three senior nonclinical scientists). Patients with skin disease were also invited to participate (three representatives from broad-based patient support groups dealing with all types of skin disease), as well as representatives from primary care (one clinical academic general practitioner who also sought input from the Dermatology Specialist Interest Group, Society for Academic Primary Care), two senior members of the BAD (i.e. members of the BAD executive committee) and clinical trainees (two trainees in dermatology).

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.