Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30359391›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Identifying top 10 primary care research priorities from international stakeholders using a modified Delphi method.

Braden O'Neill, Vanessa Aversa, Katherine Rouleau, Kim Lazare, Frank Sullivan, Nav Persaud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Research prioritization in hernia surgery: a modified Delphi ACHQC and VHOC expert consensus.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. UK general practice service delivery research priorities: an adapted James Lind Alliance approach.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Priorities for collaborative research using very preterm birth cohorts.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Braden O'NeillDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2164-8263
Vanessa AversaUndergraduate Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Katherine RouleauDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kim LazareDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Frank SullivanDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6623-4964
Nav PersaudDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh quality primary care is fundamental to achieving health for all. Research priority setting is a key facilitator of improving how research activity responds to concrete needs. There has never before been an attempt to identify international primary care research priorities, in order to guide resource allocation and to enhance global primary care. This study aimed to identify a list of top 10 primary care research priorities, as identified by members of the public, health professionals working in primary care, researchers, and policymakers.

methodsWe adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process, to conduct multiple rounds of stakeholder recruitment and prioritization. The study included an online survey conducted in three languages, followed by an in-person priority setting exercise involving primary care stakeholders from 13 countries.

findingsParticipants identified a list of top 10 international primary care research priorities. These were focused on diverse topics such as enhancing use of information and communication technology, and improving integration of indigenous communities' knowledge in the design of primary care services. The main limitations of the study related to challenges in engaging an adequate diversity and number of appropriate stakeholders, particularly members of the public, in aggregating the diverse set of responses into coherent categories representative of the participants' perspectives and in adequately representing the diversity of submitted responses while ensuring research priorities on the final list are sufficiently actionable to guide resource allocation.

conclusionsThe top 10 identified research priorities have the potential to guide research resource allocation, supporting funding agencies and initiatives to promote global primary care research and practice.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDelphi TechniqueHealth PrioritiesPrimary Health CareConsensusHealth OccupationsHumansInternationalityLanguagePhysicians, FamilyProfessional PracticeResearchSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30359391
PMCPMC6201922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.