Identifying Research Priorities Around Psycho-Cognitive and Social Factors for Recovery from Hip Fractures: An International Decision-Making Process

Auais et al. (2018) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

psycho-cognitive and social factors for recovery from hip fractures

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

international

Why was it conducted at all?

As life expectancy increases worldwide, hip fractures are projected to become an even greater global health problem in the near future. Although most of the recovery process happens after discharge from acute and subacute care settings, the available guidelines for rehabilitation focus solely on these settings and address mainly physical factors. However, emerging evidence suggests that recovering from a hip fracture is often complicated by the presence of many ‘non-physical' factors that can influence recovery.

What was the objective?

to identify future research priorities for understanding the role of psycho-cognitive and social factors in the recovery process for community-dwelling older adults after hip fracture and to survey world experts to confirm the identified priorities

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 10 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

October 2016 - June 2017

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

survey; workshop

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: workshop: participants separated into 4 groups and asked to identify most important research areas via nominal group technique, followed by group discussion and group rankings. Step 2: 4 group rankings reorganized into 2 separate lists of proposed research priorities: 7 unique priorities for psycho-cognitive factors and 7 for social factors were identified. Step 3: survey: participants were asked to rank the 5 items on the list by importance

Which stakeholders took part?

Researchers and clinicians: most clinicians had more than 10 years of experience working with patients, most of them were orthopaedic surgeons. Workshop: 23 participants. Survey: 152 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Survey: The survey was distributed via the FFN membership mailing list.

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.