Suppr超能文献

按专业背景划分的研究重点——对詹姆斯·林德联盟优先事项设定合作项目的详细分析

Research priorities by professional background - A detailed analysis of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

作者信息

Arulkumaran Nishkantha, Reay Hannah, Brett Stephen J

机构信息

Intensive Care Foundation, Churchill House, London, UK.

Bloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, UK.

出版信息

J Intensive Care Soc. 2016 May;17(2):111-116. doi: 10.1177/1751143715609954. Epub 2015 Oct 30.

Abstract

The Intensive Care Foundation, in partnership with the James Lind Alliance, has supported a national project to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. We conducted a secondary analysis to explore differences in priorities determined by different respondent groups in order to identify different groups' perceptions of gaps in knowledge. There were two surveys conducted as part of the original project. Survey 1 comprised a single open question to identify important research topics; survey 2 aimed to prioritise these topics using a 10-point Likert scale. In survey 1, despite clear differences in suggestions amongst the respondent groups, themes of comfort/communication and post-ICU rehabilitation were the within the top 2 suggestions across all groups. Patients and relatives suggested research topics to which they could easily relate, whereas there was a greater breadth of suggestions from clinicians. In survey 2, the number of research priorities that received a mode score of 10 varied from 1 to 36. Patients scored 36 out of the 37 topics with a mode score of 10. All other groups scored topics with more discrimination, with the number of topics with a mode score of 10 ranging from 1 to 20. Differences in the proportions of the representative groups are therefore unlikely to have translated to an impartial conclusion. Clinicians, patients, and family members have jointly identified the research priorities for UK ICM practice.

摘要

重症监护基金会与詹姆斯·林德联盟合作,支持了一个全国性项目,以确定并优先处理有关成人重症监护的未解决问题,这些问题对重症患者、他们的家人以及护理他们的医护人员至关重要。我们进行了二次分析,以探讨不同受访者群体确定的优先事项之间的差异,从而确定不同群体对知识差距的看法。作为原始项目的一部分,进行了两项调查。调查1包含一个开放式问题,以确定重要的研究主题;调查2旨在使用10点李克特量表对这些主题进行优先排序。在调查1中,尽管受访者群体之间的建议存在明显差异,但舒适/沟通和重症监护病房后康复主题在所有群体的前两条建议中。患者和亲属提出了他们容易理解的研究主题,而临床医生的建议范围更广。在调查2中,获得10分模式评分的研究优先事项数量从1到36不等。患者在37个主题中的36个主题上获得了10分的模式评分。所有其他群体对主题的评分更具区分性,获得10分模式评分的主题数量从1到20不等。因此,代表性群体比例的差异不太可能转化为公正的结论。临床医生、患者和家庭成员共同确定了英国重症监护医学实践的研究优先事项。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验