The National Institute for Health Research Critical Care Research Priority Setting Survey 2018
For which topic were research priorities identified?
In which location was the research priority setting conducted?
Europe - United Kingdom
Why was it conducted at all?
Defining research priorities in intensive care is key to determining appropriate allocation of funding. Several topics were identified from the 2014 James Lind Alliance priority setting exercise conducted with the Intensive Care Society. The James Lind Alliance process included significant (and vital) patient/public contribution, but excluded professionals without a bedside role. As a result it may have failed to identify potential early-stage translational research topics, which are more likely identified by medical and/or academic members of relevant specialist basic science groups.
What was the objective?
to identify the key research priorities from intensive care clinicians, including allied health professionals and academics, along with any evolving themes arising from translational research
What was the outcome?
a ranking list of 25 research topics
How long did the research prioritization take?
November 2017 - January 2018
Which methods were used to identify research priorities?
How were the priorities for research identified exactly?
Step 1: survey: participants were asked: "What is the most important unanswered clinical or service delivery question in critical care you think that needs to be answered?", participants were given the option of developing question with PICO format and to provide justification for importance of their submitted topic, 203 research topics suggested. Step 2: data processing: submissions reviewed, resulting in 174 topics. Step 3: meeting: via teleconference, to discuss the feasibility of research topics, to identify areas with potential overlap with current NIHR commissioned calls and to discuss most appropriate NIHR funding program for a given topic
Which stakeholders took part?
Intensive care clinicians, academics and allied health professions. Survey: 94 participants.
How were stakeholders recruited?
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent on behalf of the NIHR by The Intensive Care Society, The Faculty of Intensive Care, The Paediatric Intensive Care Society, The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre and the NIHR Clinical Research Network Critical Care National Specialty Group. Only topics relating to the adult critical care population are discussed in this paper.
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.