确定爱尔兰辅助医疗研究议程制定工作的基本要素:德尔菲研究。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Research Policy and Systems Pub Date : 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1186/s12961-024-01188-6
Kelly-Ann Bowles, Alan M Batt, Michelle O'Toole, Shane Knox, Liam Hemingway, Julia Williams, Brett Williams, Niamh M Cummins
{"title":"确定爱尔兰辅助医疗研究议程制定工作的基本要素:德尔菲研究。","authors":"Kelly-Ann Bowles, Alan M Batt, Michelle O'Toole, Shane Knox, Liam Hemingway, Julia Williams, Brett Williams, Niamh M Cummins","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01188-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Paramedicine is a dynamic profession which has evolved from a \"treat and transport\" service into a complex network of health professionals working in a diverse range of clinical roles. Research is challenging in the paramedicine context, and internationally, research capacity and culture has developed slowly. International examples of research agendas and strategies in paramedicine exist, however, research priorities have not previously been identified in Ireland.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a three round electronic modified Delphi design which aimed to establish the key aspects of the research priorities via end-user consensus. Participants included interested stakeholders involved in prehospital care or research in Ireland. The first round questionnaire consisted of open-ended questions with results coded and developed into themes for the closed-ended questions used in the second and third round questionnaires. A consensus level of 70% was set a priori for second and third rounds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Research Priorities that reached consensus included Staff Wellbeing, Education and Professionalism and Acute Medical Conditions. Respondents indicated that these three areas should be a priority in the next 2 years. Education, Staffing and Leadership were imperative Key Resources that required change. Education was a Key Processes change deemed imperative to allow the future research to occur. Outcomes that should be included in the future research strategy were Patient Outcomes, Practitioner Development, Practitioner Wellbeing, Alternate Pathways, Evidence-based Practice and Staff Satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study are similar to previously published international studies, with some key differences. There was a greater emphasis on Education and Practitioner Wellbeing with the latter possibly attributed to the timing of the research in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The disseminated findings of this study should inform sustainable funding models to aid the development of paramedicine research in Ireland.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"100"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11313103/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying the essential elements to inform the development of a research agenda for Paramedicine in Ireland: a Delphi Study.\",\"authors\":\"Kelly-Ann Bowles, Alan M Batt, Michelle O'Toole, Shane Knox, Liam Hemingway, Julia Williams, Brett Williams, Niamh M Cummins\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-024-01188-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Paramedicine is a dynamic profession which has evolved from a \\\"treat and transport\\\" service into a complex network of health professionals working in a diverse range of clinical roles. Research is challenging in the paramedicine context, and internationally, research capacity and culture has developed slowly. International examples of research agendas and strategies in paramedicine exist, however, research priorities have not previously been identified in Ireland.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a three round electronic modified Delphi design which aimed to establish the key aspects of the research priorities via end-user consensus. Participants included interested stakeholders involved in prehospital care or research in Ireland. The first round questionnaire consisted of open-ended questions with results coded and developed into themes for the closed-ended questions used in the second and third round questionnaires. A consensus level of 70% was set a priori for second and third rounds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Research Priorities that reached consensus included Staff Wellbeing, Education and Professionalism and Acute Medical Conditions. Respondents indicated that these three areas should be a priority in the next 2 years. Education, Staffing and Leadership were imperative Key Resources that required change. Education was a Key Processes change deemed imperative to allow the future research to occur. Outcomes that should be included in the future research strategy were Patient Outcomes, Practitioner Development, Practitioner Wellbeing, Alternate Pathways, Evidence-based Practice and Staff Satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study are similar to previously published international studies, with some key differences. There was a greater emphasis on Education and Practitioner Wellbeing with the latter possibly attributed to the timing of the research in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The disseminated findings of this study should inform sustainable funding models to aid the development of paramedicine research in Ireland.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11313103/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01188-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01188-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:辅助医疗是一个充满活力的职业,它已从 "治疗和运送 "服务发展成为一个由从事各种临床工作的专业医护人员组成的复杂网络。辅助医疗领域的研究工作充满挑战,而国际上的研究能力和文化发展缓慢。国际上已有辅助医疗研究议程和战略的范例,但爱尔兰此前尚未确定研究重点:本研究采用了三轮电子改良德尔菲设计,旨在通过最终用户共识确定研究重点的关键方面。参与者包括参与爱尔兰院前护理或研究的相关利益方。第一轮问卷由开放式问题组成,对结果进行编码并发展为第二轮和第三轮问卷中使用的封闭式问题的主题。第二轮和第三轮问卷的事先共识水平设定为 70%:达成共识的研究重点包括员工福利、教育和专业精神以及急性医疗状况。受访者表示,这三个领域应是未来两年的优先事项。教育、人员配备和领导力是必须改变的关键资源。教育是未来研究必须进行的关键流程变革。应纳入未来研究战略的成果包括:患者成果、从业人员发展、从业人员福利、替代途径、循证实践和员工满意度:本研究的结果与之前发表的国际研究结果相似,但存在一些主要差异。这项研究更加重视教育和从业人员的福利,后者可能是由于研究的时机与 COVID-19 大流行有关。这项研究结果的传播应为可持续的资助模式提供信息,以帮助爱尔兰辅助医疗研究的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Identifying the essential elements to inform the development of a research agenda for Paramedicine in Ireland: a Delphi Study.

Background: Paramedicine is a dynamic profession which has evolved from a "treat and transport" service into a complex network of health professionals working in a diverse range of clinical roles. Research is challenging in the paramedicine context, and internationally, research capacity and culture has developed slowly. International examples of research agendas and strategies in paramedicine exist, however, research priorities have not previously been identified in Ireland.

Methods: This study was a three round electronic modified Delphi design which aimed to establish the key aspects of the research priorities via end-user consensus. Participants included interested stakeholders involved in prehospital care or research in Ireland. The first round questionnaire consisted of open-ended questions with results coded and developed into themes for the closed-ended questions used in the second and third round questionnaires. A consensus level of 70% was set a priori for second and third rounds.

Results: Research Priorities that reached consensus included Staff Wellbeing, Education and Professionalism and Acute Medical Conditions. Respondents indicated that these three areas should be a priority in the next 2 years. Education, Staffing and Leadership were imperative Key Resources that required change. Education was a Key Processes change deemed imperative to allow the future research to occur. Outcomes that should be included in the future research strategy were Patient Outcomes, Practitioner Development, Practitioner Wellbeing, Alternate Pathways, Evidence-based Practice and Staff Satisfaction.

Conclusion: The results of this study are similar to previously published international studies, with some key differences. There was a greater emphasis on Education and Practitioner Wellbeing with the latter possibly attributed to the timing of the research in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. The disseminated findings of this study should inform sustainable funding models to aid the development of paramedicine research in Ireland.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
期刊最新文献
Leveraging international stakeholders' experiences with oral PrEP costs to accelerate implementation of the monthly dapivirine vaginal ring: A qualitative study. The embedded research model: an answer to the research and evaluation needs of community service organizations? Implementation of national policies and interventions (WHO Best Buys) for non-communicable disease prevention and control in Ghana: a mixed methods analysis. Policy impact of the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: global perspective and United Kingdom case study. Real-world data to improve organ and tissue donation policies: lessons learned from the tissue and organ donor epidemiology study.
×
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