Research Priorities for Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Sexually Transmitted Infections Surveillance, Screening, and Intervention in Emergency Departments: Consensus-Based Recommendations

Haukoos et al. (2009) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?


In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - USA

Why was it conducted at all?

In response to the evolving and growing interest in public health and preventive emergency medicine, Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), the journal of the SAEM, convened a consensus conference entitled ‘‘Public Health in the ED: Surveillance, Screening, and Intervention'' as part of its 2009 annual meeting. The conference goals included 1) development of consensus statements to establish priorities and highlight opportunities in public health research in emergency medical care, 2) development of recommendations to advance an agenda for public health research in emergency medical care, and 3) development of a framework for building a research network related to public health research in emergency medicine (EM). This article describes the results of the HIV and STI prevention breakout session of the consensus conference.

What was the objective?

to use experts to define knowledge gaps and priority research questions related to the performance of HIV and STI surveillance, screening, and intervention in the emergency department

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 14 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

meeting; survey

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: survey 1: to generate ideas, participants were asked: What are the current knowledge gaps related to HIV or STI surveillance, screening, or intervention in the ED? What are the highest priority research questions related to HIV or STI surveillance, screening, or intervention in the ED?, 54 potential knowledge gaps and 27 potential research priorities were submitted. Step 2: meeting: reviewing and discussing submissions, 37 total knowledge gaps and 29 total research questions were formulated. Step 3: prioritization: during meeting: participants were asked to rate each submission, resulting in 11 knowledge gaps with highest agreement and 14 research questions with highest agreement. Step 4: survey 2: consisting of focused list of knowledge gaps and research priorities, participants were asked for their ratings, resulting in three items as most agreed knowledge gaps

Which stakeholders took part?

National and international experts in HIV and STI prevention. Survey 1: 39 participants. Meeting: 21 participants. Survey 2: 38 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

National and international experts in HIV and STI prevention were invited to participate in the nominal group approach. Potential participants were identified from 1) the membership of the National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium; 2) authorship on recent scientific abstracts related to HIV or STIs in the ED from the annual meetings of SAEM, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the 2008 National Summit on HIV Diagnosis, Prevention, and Access to Care; 3) authors of recently published peer-reviewed articles on HIV or STIs in the ED; and 4) direct contact of specific HIV and STI experts.

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.