Research agenda and priorities for Australian and New Zealand paramedicine: A Delphi consensus study

R. Pap, Nigel Barr, Amy Hutchison, Peter O’Meara, Paul Simpson, M. Reardon, Harry Reeves, Louise Reynolds, Michelle Thomson, Linda Ross
{"title":"Research agenda and priorities for Australian and New Zealand paramedicine: A Delphi consensus study","authors":"R. Pap, Nigel Barr, Amy Hutchison, Peter O’Meara, Paul Simpson, M. Reardon, Harry Reeves, Louise Reynolds, Michelle Thomson, Linda Ross","doi":"10.1177/27536386241231666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The systematic development of a research agenda is essential for coordinated, collaborative, and efficient research endeavours in any discipline. The aim of this study was to create and prioritise a stakeholder-informed, consensus-derived paramedicine research agenda for Australia and New Zealand. Methods: The study utilised a modified Delphi consensus method consisting of three phases. Phase 1, the findings of which were previously published, consisted of a survey of Australian and New Zealand paramedicine stakeholders to inform the subsequent consensus process. Phase 2 contained three Delphi rounds involving key paramedicine profession stakeholders to generate a research agenda. Panellists were asked to rate their agreement with the inclusion of each item using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement signalled by ‘ Strongly Agree’ and ‘ Agree’ responses. Phase 3 involved one additional round of voting to determine the importance and thus establish priorities amongst the final list of agenda items. Results: There were 341 responses to the survey in Phase 1 and thematic analysis produced a provisional agenda consisting of 109 perceived research priorities. Sixty-three key paramedicine profession stakeholders were invited to Phases 2 and 3, of which 56 (88.9%) completed all three rounds in Phase 2, and 43 (68.3%) completed the final Phase 3. Thirty-seven items achieved consensus and were subsequently prioritised constituting the final research agenda. Panellists gave the highest priority to ‘Paramedics role in broader healthcare system’, ‘New and emerging roles in for paramedics’, ‘Patient safety’, ‘System improvement’, and ‘Clinical reasoning processes and models’. Conclusion: Using a modified Delphi consensus method and drawing from a broad range of stakeholders, a 37-item Australian and New Zealand paramedicine research agenda with item prioritisation was developed. The agenda serves to inform industry and other key stakeholders to guide their research endeavours ultimately leading to meaningful and tangible impact within the paramedicine profession.","PeriodicalId":509430,"journal":{"name":"Paramedicine","volume":"519 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27536386241231666","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

Introduction: The systematic development of a research agenda is essential for coordinated, collaborative, and efficient research endeavours in any discipline. The aim of this study was to create and prioritise a stakeholder-informed, consensus-derived paramedicine research agenda for Australia and New Zealand. Methods: The study utilised a modified Delphi consensus method consisting of three phases. Phase 1, the findings of which were previously published, consisted of a survey of Australian and New Zealand paramedicine stakeholders to inform the subsequent consensus process. Phase 2 contained three Delphi rounds involving key paramedicine profession stakeholders to generate a research agenda. Panellists were asked to rate their agreement with the inclusion of each item using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement signalled by ‘ Strongly Agree’ and ‘ Agree’ responses. Phase 3 involved one additional round of voting to determine the importance and thus establish priorities amongst the final list of agenda items. Results: There were 341 responses to the survey in Phase 1 and thematic analysis produced a provisional agenda consisting of 109 perceived research priorities. Sixty-three key paramedicine profession stakeholders were invited to Phases 2 and 3, of which 56 (88.9%) completed all three rounds in Phase 2, and 43 (68.3%) completed the final Phase 3. Thirty-seven items achieved consensus and were subsequently prioritised constituting the final research agenda. Panellists gave the highest priority to ‘Paramedics role in broader healthcare system’, ‘New and emerging roles in for paramedics’, ‘Patient safety’, ‘System improvement’, and ‘Clinical reasoning processes and models’. Conclusion: Using a modified Delphi consensus method and drawing from a broad range of stakeholders, a 37-item Australian and New Zealand paramedicine research agenda with item prioritisation was developed. The agenda serves to inform industry and other key stakeholders to guide their research endeavours ultimately leading to meaningful and tangible impact within the paramedicine profession.
澳大利亚和新西兰辅助医疗的研究议程和优先事项:德尔菲共识研究
导言:系统地制定研究议程对于任何学科的协调、合作和高效研究工作都至关重要。本研究旨在为澳大利亚和新西兰制定一份由利益相关者提供信息、达成共识的辅助医疗研究议程,并确定其优先次序。研究方法:本研究采用经修改的德尔菲共识法,包括三个阶段。第 1 阶段是对澳大利亚和新西兰辅助医疗利益相关者进行调查,为随后的共识过程提供信息,调查结果已于之前公布。第 2 阶段包括三轮德尔菲法,由辅助医疗行业的主要利益相关者参与,以制定研究议程。小组成员被要求使用 5 点李克特量表对是否同意纳入每个项目进行评分。以 "非常同意 "和 "同意 "的回答表示 80% 的同意即为达成共识。第 3 阶段包括另外一轮投票,以确定重要性,从而确定最终议程项目清单的优先次序。结果:第 1 阶段的调查共收到 341 份回复,通过主题分析得出了由 109 个研究重点组成的临时议程。63 名辅助医疗专业的主要利益相关者应邀参加了第 2 和第 3 阶段的调查,其中 56 人(88.9%)完成了第 2 阶段的所有三轮调查,43 人(68.3%)完成了第 3 阶段的最终调查。有 37 个项目达成了共识,并随后确定了优先次序,构成了最终的研究议程。小组成员最优先考虑 "辅助医务人员在更广泛的医疗保健系统中的作用"、"辅助医务人员的新角色和新兴角色"、"患者安全"、"系统改进 "和 "临床推理过程和模型"。结论利用修改后的德尔菲共识法,并从广泛的利益相关者中汲取经验,制定了包含 37 个项目的澳大利亚和新西兰辅助医务人员研究议程,并对项目进行了优先排序。该议程旨在为行业和其他主要利益相关者提供信息,以指导他们的研究工作,最终在辅助医疗专业领域产生有意义的实际影响。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信