PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionally affected by conditions requiring emergency care but there are limited contextually appropriate studies performed within these settings involving the patient population and healthcare systems they aim to benefit. Over the past five years, researchers in the Western Cape of South Africa have produced approximately 20 % of all emergency care publications from Africa, yet no agreed list of research priorities exists. Establishing research priorities, via recognised consensus methods, can ensure that efforts and resources in LMICs are more appropriately targeted to the need.
UNASSIGNED: Using a modified Delphi study, we invited a range of public and private representatives from different professional emergency care cadres within the Western Cape to identify current evidence gaps and consensus research priorities across the four areas of the WHO Emergency Care Systems framework: scene care, prehospital care, facility-based care, and the emergency care system itself. We then purposively selected eleven experts holding key academic and management positions to form a panel and perform a nominal group technique process to discuss these identified research priorities and establish a final list of priority research questions.
UNASSIGNED: Forty of the sixty-six (61 %) emergency care professionals invited contributed to the Delphi phase of the study, with representation from all professional cadres. After deduplication, 154 research topics were identified in the first round. In the second round, 94 (61 %) topics were considered research priorities by at least 80 % of participants. Following the nominal group technique discussion, 26 questions were established as consensus research priorities having been ranked as a top ten priority by over 50 % of panellists.
UNASSIGNED: We were able to successfully collate expert opinion and identify existing emergency care knowledge gaps within the Western Cape province of South Africa. Key topics identified for future work included questions on current health-seeking behaviour, dispatch, interfacility transfer, and staff burnout.
UNASSIGNED: Using a modified Delphi study, we invited a range of public and private representatives from different professional emergency care cadres within the Western Cape to identify current evidence gaps and consensus research priorities across the four areas of the WHO Emergency Care Systems framework: scene care, prehospital care, facility-based care, and the emergency care system itself. We then purposively selected eleven experts holding key academic and management positions to form a panel and perform a nominal group technique process to discuss these identified research priorities and establish a final list of priority research questions.
UNASSIGNED: Forty of the sixty-six (61 %) emergency care professionals invited contributed to the Delphi phase of the study, with representation from all professional cadres. After deduplication, 154 research topics were identified in the first round. In the second round, 94 (61 %) topics were considered research priorities by at least 80 % of participants. Following the nominal group technique discussion, 26 questions were established as consensus research priorities having been ranked as a top ten priority by over 50 % of panellists.
UNASSIGNED: We were able to successfully collate expert opinion and identify existing emergency care knowledge gaps within the Western Cape province of South Africa. Key topics identified for future work included questions on current health-seeking behaviour, dispatch, interfacility transfer, and staff burnout.
摘要：
■低收入和中等收入国家（LMICs）受到需要紧急护理的条件的不成比例的影响，但在这些环境中进行的上下文适当研究有限，涉及患者群体和他们旨在受益的医疗保健系统。在过去的五年里，南非西开普省的研究人员发表了大约20%的来自非洲的紧急护理出版物，然而，没有达成一致的研究重点清单存在。确定研究重点，通过公认的共识方法，可以确保低收入国家的努力和资源更适当地针对需求。
■使用改进的德尔菲研究，我们邀请了来自西开普省不同专业紧急护理干部的一系列公共和私人代表，以确定世卫组织紧急护理系统框架四个领域的当前证据差距和共识研究重点：现场护理，院前护理,基于设施的护理，以及紧急护理系统本身。然后，我们有目的地选择了11位持有关键学术和管理职位的专家组成一个小组，并执行一个名义上的小组技术过程，以讨论这些确定的研究重点，并建立优先研究问题的最终列表。
■受邀的66名急诊护理专业人员中有40名（61%）参与了德尔菲阶段的研究，所有专业干部都有代表。重复数据删除后，第一轮确定了154个研究主题。在第二轮中,至少80％的参与者将94％（61％）的主题视为研究重点。在名义组技术讨论之后，超过50％的小组成员将26个问题确定为共识研究优先事项，并将其列为十大优先事项。
■我们成功地整理了专家意见，并确定了南非西开普省现有的急救护理知识差距。确定未来工作的关键主题包括关于当前寻求健康行为的问题，调度,设施间转移，和员工倦怠。
■使用改进的德尔菲研究，我们邀请了来自西开普省不同专业紧急护理干部的一系列公共和私人代表，以确定世卫组织紧急护理系统框架四个领域的当前证据差距和共识研究重点：现场护理，院前护理,基于设施的护理，以及紧急护理系统本身。然后，我们有目的地选择了11位持有关键学术和管理职位的专家组成一个小组，并执行一个名义上的小组技术过程，以讨论这些确定的研究重点，并建立优先研究问题的最终列表。
■受邀的66名急诊护理专业人员中有40名（61%）参与了德尔菲阶段的研究，所有专业干部都有代表。重复数据删除后，第一轮确定了154个研究主题。在第二轮中,至少80％的参与者将94％（61％）的主题视为研究重点。在名义组技术讨论之后，超过50％的小组成员将26个问题确定为共识研究优先事项，并将其列为十大优先事项。
■我们成功地整理了专家意见，并确定了南非西开普省现有的急救护理知识差距。确定未来工作的关键主题包括关于当前寻求健康行为的问题，调度,设施间转移，和员工倦怠。
