Prison Health Service Directors' Views on Research Priorities and Organizational Issues in Conducting Research in Prison: Outcomes of a National Deliberative Roundtable
For which topic were research priorities identified?
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
Australia - Australia
Why was it conducted at all?
Given that prisoners have significant health needs across most areas, the paucity of prisoner health research, and the difficulties involved in the conduct of research in this setting, there is a need to develop research priorities that align with key stakeholder groups. One such group are those responsible for health service provision in prisons - prison health service directors.
What was the objective?
to assess the views of Australian prison health service directors on prisoner health research priorities
What was the outcome?
a ranking list of 24 research topics
How long did the research prioritization take?
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: workshop: designed as national deliberative roundtable with World Café and nominal group technique, first step was ideas generation in small groups: participants were asked to discuss the questions: What are the health research priority areas in prisoner health? What are the institutional/organizational issues in conducting research with prisoners? What do you consider to be the ethical issues in conducting research with prisoners? Identify any opportunities for collaborative and national research for the future. Step 2: clarification of ideas: ideas were discussed, revisions made, 12 topics identified, participants were asked to write down five most important ideas and to rank them in order of importance
Which stakeholders took part?
Prison health service directors. 13 participants.
How were stakeholders recruited?
Prison health service directors from each of the eight Australian states and territories were invited to participate in a national roundtable in Sydney. If directors were unable to attend they were asked to nominate an appropriate delegate to represent them.
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.