Pediatric cancer nursing research priorities: a Delphi study

Defining research priorities in complementary medicine in oncology

OBJECTIVES

The high usage of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) by cancer patients is increasing, despite limited research available to support their use. Therefore identifying research priorities that can inform the evidence base for CAM treatment is relevant for many stakeholders, including funders, researchers and consumers.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Integrative medicine experts, oncologists with interest in CAM research, consumer representatives and CAM practitioners and researchers took part in a modified Delphi process conducted online over three rounds. In round 1 each participant recommended up to five CAM research priorities, which were collated and ranked in round 2 by their potential usefulness in cancer care, using a Likert scale. In round 3, participants ranked the remaining propositions by their ability to impact cancer care in Australia. The lowest ranking priorities were eliminated at the completion of each round.

RESULTS

From the 122 propositions originally submitted by the 27 participants, the highest scoring ones included: studying interactions between biologically based CAM and conventional cancer treatments, examining CAM effects on quality of life, identifying effective communication strategies around CAM, studying the role of physical activity in symptom relief and cancer prevention and exploring the role of acupuncture in cancer care.

CONCLUSION

This method of research prioritisation achieved consensus of opinion among a very diverse group of stakeholders, invited to collaborate around a highly polarising topic. Through a structured interaction, the group agreed on a priority research list acceptable to all stakeholders, which can serve as a blueprint for CAM research in oncology in Australia.

The Delphi process: a solution for reviewing novel grant applications

INTRODUCTION

Traditional scientific review processes are not well suited for evaluating the merits of research in situations where the available scientific evidence is limited and if review panels have widely divergent opinions. This study tested whether a Delphi process is useful in grant selection.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

A Delphi process prioritized novel research proposals in pancreatic cancer. Five reviewers holding similar grants overseas ranked research applications by scientific merit, innovativeness, and level of risk.

RESULT

Three rounds of voting evaluated the best 10 applications received. In the first round of the Delphi process, scores ranged from 5.0 to 8.3. After the second round, the cumulative scores of the eight remaining applications ranged from 10 to 12.6. At the end of the third round, the final cumulative scores of the remaining six applications ranged from 13.6 to 18.2. The four highest ranking applications were recommended for funding, with agreement from reviewers.

CONCLUSION

A modified Delphi process proved to be an efficient, transparent, and equitable method of reviewing novel grant applications in a specialized field of research, where no local expertise was available. This process may also be useful for other peer review processes, particularly where there is limited access to local experts.

Defining research priorities for pancreatic cancer in Australia: results of a consensus development process

Introduction

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the sixth leading cause of cancer death in Australia and the fourth in the United States, yet research in PC is lagging behind that in other cancers associated with a high disease burden. In the absence of agreed processes to reliably identify research areas which can deliver significant advances in PC research, the Cancer Council NSW established a strategic partnership with the NSW Pancreatic Cancer Network to define critical research issues and opportunities that could accelerate progress in this field in Australia.

Materials and methods

The process consisted of five distinct stages: a literature review on recent progress in PC research, semi-structured expert interviews, a Delphi process, consumer focus groups, and a nominal group process. Information collected at each step informed the development of subsequent stages.

Results

The results from these steps were refined by the nominal group into a set of seven specific pancreatic cancer research goals. The goals were disseminated and led to a new funding scheme for key PC research priorities.

Discussion

This prioritisation exercise provided a much needed “road map” for research prioritisation in PC and served as a checklist to researchers applying for PC research grants to confirm how their research can contribute towards accelerating progress in PC research in Australia.

Research priorities for the nursing of children and their families: a Delphi study

To most effectively address the issues influencing the health care of children while using limited resources, some priorities for research must be established. To date, there has not been a focused effort to systematically identify and describe critical areas of inquiry needed to provide quality pediatric care in the next decade. The purpose of this study was to systematically survey a cross-section of pediatric nurse experts in a variety of settings across the nation. A three-round Delphi technique was used. In the first round, participants responded to three open-ended questions asking them to identify (a) threats affecting children's health, (b) major societal factors that would positively influence children's health in the future, and (c) important research questions in the field. In rounds two and three, respondents rated the importance of those topics. Of two hundred fifty respondents, 75% or more reached consensus on the importance of 35 researchable topics across five categories of research in nursing of children and their families. The focus was on patient-centered research.