Partnering with consumers and practising clinicians to establish research priorities for public hospital maternity services.

Roni Cole, Lauren Kearney, Bec Jenkinson, Imogen Kettle, Beng Ng, Leonie Callaway, Rachael Nugent
{"title":"Partnering with consumers and practising clinicians to establish research priorities for public hospital maternity services.","authors":"Roni Cole, Lauren Kearney, Bec Jenkinson, Imogen Kettle, Beng Ng, Leonie Callaway, Rachael Nugent","doi":"10.1071/AH23222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective An innovative approach by two Queensland health services was taken to establish a shared maternity services' research agenda by partnering with consumers and clinicians. The objective was to set the top five research priorities to ensure that the future direction of maternity research was relevant to end-user and organisational needs. Methods A modified James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology was applied between August 2022 and February 2023 across two south-east Queensland Health Services which included five participating maternity units and involved partnership with consumers, healthcare professionals and clinician researchers. The reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) was followed. Results There were 192 respondents to the initial harvesting survey, generating 461 research suggestions. These were aggregated into 122 unique questions and further summarised into a list of 44 research questions. The 157 eligible interim prioritisation survey respondents short-listed 27 questions ready for ranking at a final consensus workshop. The top five question themes were: (1) maternity care experience, engagement and outcomes of priority populations; (2) increasing spontaneous vaginal birth; (3) experiences and perceptions of woman/person-centred care; (4) best practice care during the 'fourth' trimester; and (5) antibiotic use during labour and birth. Conclusion Applying an adapted JLA framework can successfully shape and establish a research agenda within Australian health services, through partnership with consumers and practicing clinicians. This is a transparent process that strengthens the legitimacy and credibility of research agendas, and it can form a replicable framework for other settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":93891,"journal":{"name":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","volume":" ","pages":"321-331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH23222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective An innovative approach by two Queensland health services was taken to establish a shared maternity services' research agenda by partnering with consumers and clinicians. The objective was to set the top five research priorities to ensure that the future direction of maternity research was relevant to end-user and organisational needs. Methods A modified James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology was applied between August 2022 and February 2023 across two south-east Queensland Health Services which included five participating maternity units and involved partnership with consumers, healthcare professionals and clinician researchers. The reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) was followed. Results There were 192 respondents to the initial harvesting survey, generating 461 research suggestions. These were aggregated into 122 unique questions and further summarised into a list of 44 research questions. The 157 eligible interim prioritisation survey respondents short-listed 27 questions ready for ranking at a final consensus workshop. The top five question themes were: (1) maternity care experience, engagement and outcomes of priority populations; (2) increasing spontaneous vaginal birth; (3) experiences and perceptions of woman/person-centred care; (4) best practice care during the 'fourth' trimester; and (5) antibiotic use during labour and birth. Conclusion Applying an adapted JLA framework can successfully shape and establish a research agenda within Australian health services, through partnership with consumers and practicing clinicians. This is a transparent process that strengthens the legitimacy and credibility of research agendas, and it can form a replicable framework for other settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与消费者和执业临床医生合作,确定公立医院产科服务的研究重点。
目标 昆士兰州两家医疗服务机构采用创新方法,通过与消费者和临床医生合作,制定了共同的产科服务研究议程。方法在 2022 年 8 月至 2023 年 2 月期间,在昆士兰州东南部的两家医疗服务机构(包括五家参与的产科医院)采用了经修改的詹姆斯-林德联盟 (JLA) 方法,并与消费者、医疗保健专业人员和临床研究人员合作。结果最初的收获调查有 192 名受访者,共提出 461 项研究建议。这些建议被汇总为 122 个独特的问题,并进一步归纳为一份包含 44 个研究问题的清单。157 位符合条件的临时优先事项调查答卷人筛选出 27 个问题,准备在最终共识研讨会上进行排序。排在前五位的问题主题是(1) 优先人群的孕产护理经验、参与度和结果;(2) 增加自然阴道分娩;(3) 妇女/以人为本的护理经验和感知;(4) "第四 "孕期的最佳护理实践;以及 (5) 分娩和生产过程中的抗生素使用。这是一个透明的过程,可加强研究议程的合法性和可信度,并可形成一个适用于其他环境的可复制框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the outcomes of Australia's first all-age public hospital Sport and Exercise Medicine Outpatient Clinic: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Trajectories of hospital service use in the last 12months of life by people with chronic kidney disease: a retrospective cohort study. Can I record this? A scoping review of Australian hospital policies governing consultation recording. Patients' reasons for leaving an emergency department without being seen: results from a survey-based cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic. What's in a name? Why the proposed title change for podiatric surgeons is a step backward.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1