ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020
Citizen and stakeholder led priority setting for long-term care research: identifying research priorities within the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) Program.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodological procedures for priority setting mental health research: a systematic review summarising the methods, designs and frameworks involved with priority setting.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- Adult day programs and their effects on individuals with dementia and their caregivers (ADAPT-DemCare): a realist synthesis to develop program theories on the how and why.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- The Association Between the Presence of Medical Care and Resident Outcomes in Canadian Nursing Homes: a Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2024Article
- Towards equitable representation in long-term residential care: widening the circle to ensure "essential voices" in research teams.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Effective approaches to public involvement in care home research: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Video Conferencing With Residents and Families for Care Planning During COVID-19: Experiences in Canadian Long-Term Care.The Gerontologist · 2023Article
- Article
- Involving stakeholders in research priority setting: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Evolving partnerships: engagement methods in an established health services research team.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- The voices of lived experience: reflections from citizen team members in a long-term care research program.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program is a longitudinal partnered program of research in Western Canada that aims to improve the quality of care and quality of life for residents and quality of worklife for staff in long-term care settings. This program of research includes researchers, citizens (persons living with dementia and caregivers of persons living in long-term care), and stakeholders (representatives from provincial and regional health authorities, owner-operators of long-term care homes). The aim of this paper is to describe how we used priority setting methods with citizens and stakeholders to identify ten priorities for research using the TREC data.
methodsWe adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership method to ensure our citizens and stakeholders could identify priorities within the existing TREC data. We administered an online survey to our citizen and stakeholder partners. An in-person priority setting workshop was held in March 2019 in Alberta, Canada to establish consensus on ten research priorities. The in-person workshop used a nominal group technique and involved two rounds of small group prioritization and one final full group ranking.
resultsWe received 72 online survey respondents and 19 persons (citizens, stakeholders) attended the in-person priority setting workshop. The workshop resulted in an unranked list of their ten research priorities for the TREC program. These priorities encompassed a range of non-clinical topics, including: influence of staffing (ratios, type of care provider) on residents and staff work life, influence of the work environment on resident outcomes, and the impact of quality improvement activities on residents and staff.
conclusionsThis modified priority setting approach provided citizens and stakeholders with an opportunity to identify their own research priorities within the TREC program, without the external pressures of researchers. These priorities will inform the secondary analyses of the TREC data and the development of new projects. This modified priority setting may be a useful approach for research teams trying to engage their non-academic partners and to identify areas for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.