BACKGROUND: Palliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research.
METHODS: A mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis.
RESULTS: Participants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities.
CONCLUSIONS: Professionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence has demonstrably improved health care practices and patient outcomes. However, systemic translation of evidence into practice is far from optimal. The reasons are complex, but often because research is not well aligned with health service priorities. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of senior health service executives on two issues: (1) the alignment between local research activity and the needs and priorities of their health services, and (2) the extent to which research is or can be integrated as part of usual health care practice.
METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior health leaders from four large health service organisations that are members of Sydney Health Partners (SHP), one of Australia\'s nationally accredited research translation centres committed to accelerating the translation of research findings into evidence-based health care. The interviews were conducted between November 2022 and January 2023, and were either audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim or recorded in the interviewer field notes. A thematic analysis of the interview data was conducted by two researchers, using the framework method to identify common themes.
RESULTS: Seventeen health executives were interviewed, including chief executives, directors of medical services, nursing, allied health, research, and others in executive leadership roles. Responses to issue (1) included themes on re-balancing curiosity- and priority-driven research; providing more support for research activity within health organisations; and helping health professionals and researchers discuss researchable priorities. Responses to issue (2) included identification of elements considered essential for embedding research in health care; and the need to break down silos between research and health care, as well as within health organisations.
CONCLUSIONS: Health service leaders value research but want more research that aligns with their needs and priorities. Discussions with researchers about those priorities may need some facilitation. Making research a more integrated part of health care will require strong and broad executive leadership, resources and infrastructure, and investing in capacity- and capability-building across health clinicians, managers and executive staff.

Progress has been made in understanding trans health needs, but research priorities are often set by policy or healthcare professionals without trans input, which may not reflect public needs. Our study sought to identify trans health research priorities in France from both researchers and the trans community.
Expert stakeholders (health and social sciences professionals, trans individuals, and their families) answered a three-round Delphi survey on trans health research priorities. The first round involved an open-ended questionnaire, analyzed qualitatively. In the second round, participants ranked research propositions from round one using a Likert scale. The study\'s second phase involved a two-hour workshop with experts and trans individuals.
53 participants (32% trans individuals/relatives, 60% health professionals) contributed 217 responses to open-ended questions, leading to 44 research priorities. After the two voting rounds, a total of five proposals reached a strong consensus cut-off and were considered as the main research priorities: evaluation of the effect of puberty blocker use in trans children and adolescents (95%), evaluation of the effect of supporting trans children and adolescents (92%), study of the support systems available for trans youth and their parents (86%), persistence of trans identity around puberty (prevalence, persistent persons characteristics) (86%), and needs assessment survey of the support for adolescents and their families (83%). Thirteen other proposals were considered moderate priorities.
The main consensus in our French study concerned research on trans-youth care and support needs. Our results may guide further trans-health research that meets the public\'s needs and desires.

UNASSIGNED: Meaningful research creates evidence for Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice.
UNASSIGNED: To establish Infection Prevention Society (IPS) members\' research priorities to support future research projects.
UNASSIGNED: A mixed methods convergent parallel design incorporating a cross-sectional survey of IPS members (2022-2023), and focus group findings from the IPS Consultative Committee, (October 2022). Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were transcribed verbatim, entered into NVivo 12, and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.
UNASSIGNED: 132 IPS members responded to the survey, including 120 (90.9%) nurses. The three most prevalent priorities were: Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (n = 84, 16.1%); IPC Training and Education (n = 77, 14.8%); and IPC Evidence-based Guidelines (n = 76, 14.6%). Analysis of the focus group transcripts identified six emergent themes \'Patient Centred Care\', \'Training and Education\', \'IPC Role and Identity\', \'IPC Leadership\', \'IPC is Everyone\'s Responsibility\', and \'Research Activity\'. Triangulation of findings demonstrated concordance between quantitative and qualitative findings with Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (QIPS) and Training and Education identified as priority research areas.
UNASSIGNED: This study highlights the necessity of developing support systems and incorporating research priorities in QIPS, as well as Training and Education. The findings of this study align with the recommended core competencies and components for effective infection prevention and control programs, making them relevant to QIPS initiatives. The outcomes of the study will serve as a valuable resource to guide the IPS Research and Development Committee in delivering practical support to IPS members.

UNASSIGNED: Respiratory therapists (RTs) are expected to stay updated on technology, treatments, research, and best practices to provide high-quality patient care. They must possess the skills to interpret, evaluate, and contribute to evidence-based practices. However, RTs often rely on research from other professions that may not fully address their specific needs, leading to insufficient guidance for their practice. Additionally, there has been no exploration of knowledge gaps and research needs from RTs\' perspectives to enhance their practice and patient outcomes. The research questions guiding this study were: (i) what are the perceived practice-oriented knowledge gaps? and (ii) what are the necessary research priorities across the respiratory therapy profession according to experts in respiratory therapy?
UNASSIGNED: A qualitative description study was conducted using semi-structured focus groups with 40 expert RTs from seven areas of practice across Canada. Data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
UNASSIGNED: We identified four major themes relating to what these experts perceive as the practice-oriented gaps and necessary research priorities across the respiratory therapy profession: 1) system-level impact of RTs, 2) optimizing respiratory therapy practices, 3) scholarship on the respiratory therapy profession and 4) respiratory therapy education.
UNASSIGNED: The findings establish a fundamental understanding of the current gaps and the specific needs of RTs that require further investigation. Participants strongly emphasized the significance of research priorities that consider the breadth and depth of the respiratory therapy profession, which underscores the complex nature of respiratory therapy and its application in practice.
UNASSIGNED: The unique insights garnered from this study highlight the knowledge gaps and research needs specific to RTs. These findings pave the way for further exploration, discourse, and research aimed at understanding the specific contributions and requirements of RTs.

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.

Globally, more than 12 million girls under the age of 18 are forced to marry every year. Progress on ending child marriage in the Arab region is slowing, and risks being reversed, due to an increase in conflict-affected populations and widespread economic crisis. The aim of this paper is to consider the research priorities across the region to inform effective and accelerated child marriage prevention and response programming within the Arab region. Seventy-three specialists supporting child marriage prevention and response programming in the Arab region engaged with up to three phases of an online Delphi consultation process on research gaps and the research environment between July 2019 and December 2021. Proposals of research gaps were elicited, reviewed, and rated by participants to confirm a shared learning agenda. Participants identified 50 different research gaps across 7 main areas, reaching a high level of consensus support for 23 of 50 statements. Clear consensus was reached in relation to an increased need to produce and use evidence to support programme development, and further research on specific drivers and consequences of child marriage. The least consensus was found in relation to how research can inform prevention and response efforts within the law and legal system. The results provide the foundation of a child marriage research agenda for the Arab region which takes into account regional distinctiveness and builds on the global momentum for child marriage research. Mechanisms are in place to do this through the Regional Action Forum, and other networks across the region.

UNASSIGNED: Clinical research in perioperative medicine requires the perspectives of patients and caregivers to increase its relevance and quality, benefiting both researchers and the community. Identifying these priorities will enable researchers, funders, and governing bodies to efficiently use scarce funding and resources. We aim to identify the top 10 research priorities in perioperative medical research in Australia.
UNASSIGNED: A mixed-methods, exploratory-sequential design will be conducted. The study will include five phases. Initially, a published open-ended survey gathered responses from the population (researchers, healthcare workers, and consumers) regarding uncertainties/questions relevant to the population about perioperative medical research. We collected 544 questions and quantitatively analysed and grouped them according to the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine-Core Outcomes Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC) endpoints. Using multicriteria decision-making software, workshops combining the population will be conducted to determine the top 10 priorities for perioperative medicine research for the Australian population.
UNASSIGNED: Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Alfred Health (Australia) Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 171/19). The findings will be disseminated in peer review publications, conferences, and dissemination across perioperative research networks. The top 10 priorities will be available to inform research funders, grant submissions, guidelines, and the population.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has emerged as an alternative model for treatment delivery and has become an important component of health service delivery. However, there is inconsistency in the use of terminologies and a lack of research priorities in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this international, multidisciplinary expert panel assembled in a modified three-round e-Delphi survey is to achieve a consensus on research priorities and for the standard terminology for musculoskeletal pain telehealth practice.
METHODS: In this international modified e-Delphi survey, we invited an expert panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, consumer representatives, industry partners, healthcare managers, and policymakers to participate in a three-round e-Delphi. Expert panels were identified through the Expertscape website, PubMed database, social media, and a snowball approach. In Round 1, potential research priorities and terminologies were presented to panel members. Panel members rated the agreement of each research priority on a 5-point Likert scale and an 11-point numerical scale, and each terminology on a 5-point Likert scale for the \"telehealth in musculoskeletal pain \" field over rounds. At least 80% of the panel members were required to agree to be deemed a consensus. We analyzed the data descriptively and assessed the stability of the results using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.
RESULTS: We performed an international e-Delphi survey from February to August 2022. Of 694 invited people, 160 panel members participated in the first round, 133 in the second round (83% retention), and 134 in the third round (84% retention). Most of the panel members were researchers 76 (47%), clinicians 57 (36%), and consumer representatives 9 (6%) of both genders especially from Brazil 31 (19%), India 22 (14%), and Australia 19 (12%) in the first round. The panel identified fourteen telehealth research priorities spanned topics including the development of strategies using information and communication technology, telehealth implementation services, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions, equity of telehealth interventions, qualitative research and eHealth literacy in musculoskeletal pain conditions from an initial list of 20 research priorities. The consensus was reached for \"digital health\" and \"telehealth\" as standard terminologies from an initial list of 37 terminologies.
CONCLUSIONS: An international, multidisciplinary expert consensus recommends that future research should consider the 14 research priorities for telehealth musculoskeletal pain reached. Additionally, the terms digital health and telehealth as the most appropriate terminologies to be used in musculoskeletal telehealth research.
UNASSIGNED: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tqmz2/ ).

Background and Objectives: Endometriosis causes significant personal and societal burden. Despite this, research funding lags behind other chronic conditions. Determining where to prioritise these limited funds is therefore vital. Research priorities may also differ between individuals with endometriosis and clinicians/researchers. The aim of this research project is to explore research priorities and factors shaping participation in endometriosis research from the perspective of people with endometriosis in Australia. Materials and Methods: Four focus groups involving 30 people with endometriosis were conducted and analysed using qualitative inductive content analysis. Results: Two categories were developed from the data: unmet research needs and motivators and barriers to participation in endometriosis research. Participants expressed interest in developing non-invasive diagnostic tools and a more multidisciplinary or holistic approach to treatment. Participants urgently desired research on treatment options for symptom management, with many prioritising non-hormonal treatments, including medicinal cannabis and complementary medicine. Others prioritised research on the causes of endometriosis over research on treatments to assist with prevention and eventual cure of the disease. The main drivers for participating in endometriosis research were hope for symptom improvement and a reduction in time to diagnosis. Research design features that were important in supporting participation included ease of access to testing centres (e.g., for blood tests) and sharing test results and automated data collection reminders, with simple stra-tegies to record data measurements. Research incentives for younger people with endometriosis and a broad dissemination of information about research projects was considered likely to increase participant numbers. Barriers included time commitments, a lack of flexibility around research appointments for data collection, travel or work commitments, concerns about the safety of some products, and trying to conceive a child. Conclusions: People with endometriosis were open to participating in research they felt aligned with their needs, with a significant focus on diagnostic tools and symptom relief. However, researchers must co-design approaches to ensure convenience and flexibility for research participation.