4.3 Article

Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities

Journal

EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL
Volume 40, Issue 9, Pages 666-670

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2022-213019

Keywords

research; acute medicine; major trauma management; mental health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK were redefined through a collaborative effort between the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and the James Lind Alliance. A steering group was established to review and refresh the research priorities, using an open call for new questions and a systematic review of existing priorities. The top 10 research priorities were agreed upon through a prioritisation survey and a final workshop.
BackgroundThe priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease pandemic and a significant worsening of the crisis in the urgent and emergency care system. Our aim was to review and refresh the emergency medicine research priorities. MethodsA steering group including patients, carers and healthcare professionals was established to agree to the methodology of the refresh. An independent adviser from the JLA chaired the steering group. The scope was adult patients in the ED. New questions were invited via an open call using multiple communications methods ensuring that patients, carers and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to contribute. Questions underwent minisystematic (BestBETs) review to determine if the question had been answered, and the original 2017 priorities were reviewed. Any questions that remained unanswered were included in an interim prioritisation survey, which was distributed to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Rankings from this survey were reviewed by the steering group and a shortlist of questions put forward to the final workshop, which was held to discuss and rank the research questions in order of priority. Results77 new questions were submitted, of which 58 underwent mini-systematic review. After this process, 49 questions (of which 32 were new, 11 were related to original priorities and 6 unanswered original priorities were carried forward) were reviewed by the steering group and included in an interim prioritisation survey. The interim prioritisation survey attracted 276 individual responses. 26 questions were shortlisted for discussion at the final prioritisation workshop, where the top 10 research priorities were agreed. ConclusionWe have redefined the priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK using robust and established methodology, which will inform the agenda for the coming years.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available