Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBretherton, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorGriffin, Xen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-26T08:45:10Z
dc.date.available2024-04-25en_US
dc.date.issued15-05-2024
dc.identifier.citationBretherton CP, Hirst R, Gacaferi H On Behalf of The Major Trauma Priority Setting Partnership Steering Group, et alResearch priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind AllianceBMJ Open 2024;14:e083450. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083450
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/96452
dc.description.abstractObjective The objective of this study is to determine research priorities for the management of major trauma, representing the shared priorities of patients, their families, carers and healthcare professionals. Design/setting An international research priority-setting partnership. Participants People who have experienced major trauma, their carers and relatives, and healthcare professionals involved in treating patients after major trauma. The scope included chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries as well as major bleeding, multiple injuries and those that threaten life or limb. Methods A multiphase priority-setting exercise was conducted in partnership with the James Lind Alliance over 24 months (November 2021–October 2023). An international survey asked respondents to submit their research uncertainties which were then combined into several indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to ensure that the questions had not already been sufficiently answered. A second international survey asked respondents to prioritise the research questions. A final shortlist of 19 questions was taken to a stakeholder workshop, where consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities. Results A total of 1572 uncertainties, submitted by 417 respondents (including 132 patients and carers), were received during the initial survey. These were refined into 53 unique indicative questions, of which all 53 were judged to be true uncertainties after reviewing the existing evidence. 373 people (including 115 patients and carers) responded to the interim prioritisation survey and 19 questions were taken to a final consensus workshop between patients, carers and healthcare professionals. At the final workshop, a consensus was reached for the ranking of the top 10 questions. Conclusions The top 10 research priorities for major trauma include patient-centred questions regarding pain relief and prehospital management, multidisciplinary working, novel technologies, rehabilitation and holistic support. These shared priorities will now be used to guide funders and teams wishing to research major trauma around the globe.
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Openen_US
dc.relation.isreplacedby123456789/96918
dc.relation.isreplacedbyhttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/96918
dc.rightsThis is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
dc.titleResearch priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Allianceen_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024.
dc.identifier.doidoi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083450
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusAccepteden_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2024-04-25en_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
qmul.funderNIHR Barts BRC::NIHRen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record