Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30121583›Full record

ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2018

Current research priorities for UK occupational physicians and occupational health researchers: a modified Delphi study.

Drushca Lalloo, Evangelia Demou, Julia Smedley, Ira Madan, Kaveh Asanati, Ewan Beaton Macdonald

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Research and teaching activity in UK occupational physicians.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2020
    Article
  4. Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Drushca LallooHealthy Working Lives Group, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Evangelia DemouMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8616-525X
Julia SmedleyOccupational Health Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK, on behalf of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine, London UK.
Ira MadanGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, Occupational Health Department, The Education Centre, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK, on behalf of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine, London UK.
Kaveh AsanatiImperial College London, National Heart & Lung Institute, Respiratory Epidemiology, Occupational Medicine and Public Health, London, UK.
Ewan Beaton MacdonaldHealthy Working Lives Group, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesStudies identifying national occupational health (OH) research priorities have been conducted in several countries to establish where OH research should be focused and where funding should be targeted. However, the UK findings are now over 20 years old, and OH practice is continuously evolving. The aim of this study was to identify current research priorities for UK occupational physicians (OPs) and occupational health researchers (OHRs).

methodsCurrent research priorities in OH were identified using a modified Delphi technique. This was conducted in two rounds to achieve consensus. Research priorities were rated, and then ranked using questionnaires developed from expert panel discussions, key research topics identified from the medical literature and participant feedback. Overall and intergroup comparisons were completed for the ranking scores.

resultsConsensus among OPs and OHRs was high with almost all (9/10) primary domains rated as 'very important' or 'absolutely necessary' by more than 54% of respondents. The research priority areas ranked highest were jointly

conclusionsWe identified the current research priorities for UK OPs and OHRs. The findings will inform future national OH research strategy and support research that addresses important knowledge gaps within OH and other interdisciplinary specialties.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchOccupational HealthResearchAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupational DiseasesUnited KingdomYoung Adultdelphi studyoccupational health researchersoccupational physicianresearch priorities

Identifiers

PMID30121583
PMCPMC6760972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.