TY - JOUR
T1 - Research priority setting in emergency care: A scoping review
AU - Crilly, Julia
AU - Huang, Ya Ling
AU - Krahe, Michelle
AU - Wilhelms, Daniel
AU - Ekelund, Ulf
AU - Hörlin, Erika
AU - Hayes, Jessica
AU - Keijzers, Gerben
N1 - Funding Information:
and support: By JACEP Open policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist.We wish to thank Sarah Thorning, Health Librarian, from the Gold Coast Health library for her time supporting and advising on early screening processes required for this review.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. JACEP Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Emergency Physicians.
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Objective: Priority areas for emergency care research are emerging and becoming ever more important. The objectives of this scoping review were to (1) provide a comprehensive overview of published emergency care priority-setting studies by collating and comparing priority-setting methodology and (2) describe the resulting research priorities identified. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework was used. Inclusion criteria were peer-review articles available in English, published between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2019 and used 2 or more search terms. Five databases (Scopus, AustHealth, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Ovid MEDLINE) were searched. REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) criteria were used to assess the quality of evidence of included articles. Results: Forty-five studies were included. Fourteen themes for emergency care research were considered within 3 overarching research domains: emergency populations (pediatrics, geriatrics), emergency care workforce and processes (nursing, shared decision making, general workforce, and process), and emergency care clinical areas (imaging, falls, pain management, trauma care, substance misuse, infectious diseases, mental health, cardiology, general clinical care). Variation in the reporting of research priority areas was evident. Priority areas to drive the global agenda for emergency care research are limited given the country and professional group-specific context of existing studies. Conclusion: This comprehensive summary of generated research priorities across emergency care provides insight into current and future research agendas. With the nature of emergency care being inherently broad, future priorities may warrant population (eg, children, geriatrics) or subspecialty (eg, trauma, toxicology, mental health) focus and be derived using a rigorous framework and patient engagement.
AB - Objective: Priority areas for emergency care research are emerging and becoming ever more important. The objectives of this scoping review were to (1) provide a comprehensive overview of published emergency care priority-setting studies by collating and comparing priority-setting methodology and (2) describe the resulting research priorities identified. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework was used. Inclusion criteria were peer-review articles available in English, published between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2019 and used 2 or more search terms. Five databases (Scopus, AustHealth, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Ovid MEDLINE) were searched. REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) criteria were used to assess the quality of evidence of included articles. Results: Forty-five studies were included. Fourteen themes for emergency care research were considered within 3 overarching research domains: emergency populations (pediatrics, geriatrics), emergency care workforce and processes (nursing, shared decision making, general workforce, and process), and emergency care clinical areas (imaging, falls, pain management, trauma care, substance misuse, infectious diseases, mental health, cardiology, general clinical care). Variation in the reporting of research priority areas was evident. Priority areas to drive the global agenda for emergency care research are limited given the country and professional group-specific context of existing studies. Conclusion: This comprehensive summary of generated research priorities across emergency care provides insight into current and future research agendas. With the nature of emergency care being inherently broad, future priorities may warrant population (eg, children, geriatrics) or subspecialty (eg, trauma, toxicology, mental health) focus and be derived using a rigorous framework and patient engagement.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85144943639&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/emp2.12852
DO - 10.1002/emp2.12852
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85144943639
SN - 2688-1152
VL - 3
SP - 1
EP - 20
JO - Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open
JF - Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open
IS - 6
M1 - e12852
ER -