Kane Rosalie A, Wilson Keren Brown, Spector William
Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 197, Minneapolis, MN 55408, USA.
Gerontologist. 2007;47 Spec No 3:141-54. doi: 10.1093/geront/47.supplement_1.141.
We describe an approach to identifying knowledge gaps, research questions, and methodological issues for assisted living (AL) research.
We undertook an inventory of AL literature and research in progress and commissioned background papers critiquing knowledge on selected subtopics. With an advisory committee, we identified a comprehensive list of researchable questions of potential utility to consumers, providers, and/or policy makers, which AL researchers then rated as to their importance. The preliminary work facilitated a structured working conference of AL researchers.
The top five priority topics identified as a result of the polling before the conference were consumer preferences, cost and financing, developing an information system for consumer decision making, developing quality measures, and resident outcomes. From conference discussion, conferees added other emphasis areas and refined the original ones. They flagged lack of standardized definitions and measures as barriers to building an empirically based AL literature. Conferees also identified distinctions between research on AL as a whole and research on interventions within AL.
In an emerging area in which the literature cannot yet support rigorous comparisons, meta-analysis, or consensus conferences, the systematic approaches, including assembling researchers who use widely different methods, generated substantial agreement on a research agenda.
我们描述了一种识别辅助生活(AL)研究中的知识空白、研究问题和方法学问题的方法。
我们对AL文献和正在进行的研究进行了盘点,并委托撰写了关于选定子主题知识批判的背景文件。我们与一个咨询委员会共同确定了一份对消费者、提供者和/或政策制定者具有潜在实用价值的可研究问题的综合清单,然后AL研究人员对这些问题的重要性进行了评级。初步工作促成了AL研究人员的一次结构化工作会议。
会议前投票确定的前五个优先主题是消费者偏好、成本与融资、开发消费者决策信息系统、制定质量衡量标准以及居民结局。通过会议讨论,与会者增加了其他重点领域并对原有领域进行了完善。他们指出缺乏标准化定义和衡量标准是构建基于实证的AL文献的障碍。与会者还确定了AL整体研究与AL内部干预研究之间的区别。
在一个文献尚无法支持严格比较、荟萃分析或共识会议的新兴领域,包括召集使用广泛不同方法的研究人员在内的系统方法就研究议程达成了实质性共识。