Setting Stroke Research Priorities: The Consumer Perspective

Sangvatanakul et al. (2010) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?


In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

Australia - Australia

Why was it conducted at all?

In 2007, a group of Australian researchers evaluated stroke patient views regarding the importance of the NSF stroke guidelines. To eliminate the jargon and reduce the amount of information, the NSF's Clinical Guidelines for Acute Stroke Management was rewritten into plain, nontechnical English terms and condensed into 18 topic areas with consumer consultation. Participants then were asked to rate each topic area as to their importance in the stroke care process. However, this study evaluated only consumer perspectives regarding the importance of those topic areas, not the priorities for research.

What was the objective?

to determine consumer views on stroke research priorities for clinical practice recommendations with lower levels of evidence and expert consensus opinion as published in the Australian stroke clinical practice guidelines

What was the outcome?

a ranking list of 13 research topics

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: collecting research questions via literature review: recommendations from the Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery rewritten and condensed into 29 consumer-focused modified rehabilitation recommendations, recommendations combined with 18 topic areas developed in Clinical Guidelines for Acute Stroke Management, duplicates deleted, resulting in 34 consumer-focused modified stroke recommendations. Step 2: survey 1: participants were asked whether recommendations were worth researching and how likely it would be that research for each of these 20 recommendations would have high impact on patient outcomes, the 13 recommendations rated by more than 75% of participants as worth researching moved forward. Step 3: survey 2: participants were asked to rank recommendations in order of priority for future stroke research

Which stakeholders took part?

Stroke survivors, carers. Survey 1: 18 participants. Survey 2: 20 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Members of WAGS were invited to participate whether stroke survivors and/or carers.

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.