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":null,"pages":null},"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.