The BAHT 2004 R&D Prioritization Exercise: Results of a Study using a Nominal Group Technique to Identify Priority Research Topics and Research Training Needs for Hand Therapists
For which topic were research priorities identified?
training needs for hand therapists
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
Europe - United Kingdom
Why was it conducted at all?
The RDSC considered that, for the 2004 survey, focus groups would provide more specific and detailed data about the needs of members, based on the discussion of ideas. It was also decided that the new BAHT research funds should be awarded to projects linked to priority topics identified by the membership. A revised R&D strategy would also be developed.
What was the objective?
to identify clinical, educational, managerial or theoretical topics in hand therapy that should be prioritized in research
What was the outcome?
a ranking list of 7 research topics
How long did the research prioritization take?
May 2004 - August 2004
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: group discussions: small group discussions with nominal group technique, participants were asked: Which five topics would you like to suggest as R&D priorities to be researched or investigated by BAHT? Which five R&D training topics or activities would you like BAHT to develop?, each small group then compiled list of 12 items and discussed and clarified meanings, followed by voting: each participant identified top five items of importance, in plenary session: each small group presented final list, followed by final discussion of items
Which stakeholders took part?
Members of the British Association of Hand Therapist: hand therapists. 59 participants.
How were stakeholders recruited?
Leading members of BAHT regional groups were approached to convene a meeting. The convenors were asked to invite a minimum of 12 members to attend.
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.