Perceptions of Patients with Spinal Cord Injury on Future Research in South India

Nagarajan et al. (2012) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

spinal cord injury

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Asia - India

Why was it conducted at all?

Spinal cord injury (SCI) often results in a disabling condition where patients are confronted with motor, sensory and autonomic dysfunction, resulting in depression and frustration (Manigandan et al., 2000; Saravanan et al., 2001). The mortality following SCI has reduced significantly due to better medical care and efficient rehabilitation. This decade has seen an aggressive search for methods to regenerate the injured spinal cord, at least in experimental settings. The research priorities are often dictated by the facilities available at a research centre, priorities of the funding agencies, perceptions of the research personnel or the treating team. As felt needs are the basis for rehabilitation intervention, we considered, this should also be the basis for decisions about the directions of rehabilitation research.

What was the objective?

to evaluate the perceptions of research priorities as expressed by people with spinal cord injury

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 9 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

survey

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: survey: list of problems related to disability was presented, participants were asked to rank three priorities for research, participants also asked to write about their major problems and needs

Which stakeholders took part?

People who were rehabilitated following sci. 62 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

A questionnaire was sent to 225 patients with SCI who had been rehabilitated and who were under regular follow-up.

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.