Priorities for Nursing Research in Korea
For which topic were research priorities identified?
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
Asia - South Korea
Why was it conducted at all?
Identifying research priorities for the nursing discipline is the responsibility of the nursing professionals. In Korea, no attempts have been made to date in setting nursing research priorities. Instead, many studies have been conducted to assess research areas and trends.
What was the objective?
to identify priorities for nursing research in Korea
What was the outcome?
a list of 5 research areas
How long did the research prioritization take?
No information provided.
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: Delphi round 1: nurses were asked to list five most important nursing research questions or problems and then asked to rate each of the five problems, also asked to assign a score for each research problem in three dimensions: the degree to which nurses take a lead role, contribution to nursing profession, and nurses' contribution to health and welfare of patients and clients, 1526 research problems identified, further narrowed down by selecting those with scores higher than 5 in each dimension and a total score higher than 15 in combined scores of the three dimensions, resulting in 1013 research problems. Step 2: Delphi round 2: participants were asked to rate each of the 29 research areas. Step 3: expert panel workshop: experts were asked to select and rank 7 of the 29 research areas they thought were the most important areas in Korea. Step 4: literature review: literature reviewed regarding 29 research areas
Which stakeholders took part?
Nurses in academic and clinical settings, representing varied clinical specialties, academic and clinical agencies. Delphi round 1: 318 participants. Delphi round 2: 310 participants. Expert panel workshop: 26 participants.
How were stakeholders recruited?
For the Delphi process, samples of similar proportion were drawn from schools of nursing, hospitals, community agencies, and national nursing organizations. Letters were sent to all deans and directors (n=114) to indicate the purpose of the study and to request their assistance by recommending 10 faculty members to complete questionnaires. For selection of clinical nurses, nurses from hospitals and community agencies were selected. Letters were sent to nursing directors of 33 teaching hospitals with more than 500 beds to explain the purpose of the study and to request their assistance by recommending two nurses from each hospital who had at least the BSN degree. A similar letter was sent to the public health nurses association, school nurses association, industrial nursing association, home health nursing society, and oriental nursing society from which 10 nurses each were sought, and to nine clinical nursing societies. In the workshop, expert panel members represented both academic and clinical nursing from the national sample. A total of 65 experts were invited from national organizations representing most clinical specialties.
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.