Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42204707›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026

Identifying research priorities for post-collision care in the United Kingdom: outcomes and methodological adaptations from the final prioritisation workshop.

Tim Nutbeam, Laura Cottey, Kerry Dungay, Lauren R Rodgers, Emily Foote, Caroline Leech, Claire E Baker, Elizabeth Box, Louise Johnson, Brian Lee and 8 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Tim NutbeamIMPACT, Centre for Post-Collision Research Innovation and Translation, Exeter, UK. timnutbeam@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0814-9240
Laura CotteyAcademic Department of Military Emergency Medicine, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4045-9444
Kerry DungayIMPACT, Centre for Post-Collision Research Innovation and Translation, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-7069-6662
Lauren R RodgersIMPACT, Centre for Post-Collision Research Innovation and Translation, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5040-3073
Emily FooteThe Emergency Department, University Hospitals Plymouth NHSTrust, Plymouth, UK.
Caroline LeechUniversity Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5301-9798
Claire E BakerI-X and Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9729-6087
Elizabeth BoxRAC Foundation, 89-91 Pall Mall, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9788-2729
Louise JohnsonLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4655-8141
Brian LeeIMPACT, Centre for Post-Collision Research Innovation and Translation, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-4103-9483
Marilyn MacQueenIMPACT, Centre for Post-Collision Research Innovation and Translation, Exeter, UK.
Rob FenwickIMPACT, Centre for Post-Collision Research Innovation and Translation, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8340-3109
Nigel LangDevon Air Ambulance Trust, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7044-3489
Ianto GuyTransport Research Laboratory, Birmingham, UK.
Ian MarrittUnited Kingdom Rescue Organisation, World Rescue Organisation, Kingston upon Hull, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-7638-8528
Ian DunbarFederation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3423-6244
Ed B G BarnardAcademic Department of Military Emergency Medicine, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5187-1952
Mini -Review Authors

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoad traffic injury remains a leading cause of death and serious injury in the United Kingdom, yet the post-collision phase of care has received comparatively little research attention. The Road Injury Chain of Survival framework identifies five interdependent links where coordinated action can improve outcomes. To address evidence gaps across this pathway, we conducted the first UK Priority Setting Partnership focused specifically on post-collision care, following James Lind Alliance methodology.

methodsA national open survey collected research uncertainties from patients, carers, bystanders, clinicians, emergency responders and policy stakeholders between July and August 2025. This was supplemented by a targeted literature review identifying research uncertainties from clinical guidelines and systematic reviews. All submissions underwent evidence checking using the BestBETs methodology. The Steering Group, comprising patients with lived experience, emergency service representatives, clinicians, and researchers, conducted interim prioritisation to produce a shortlist. A final prioritisation workshop was held in November 2025, using nominal group technique across three facilitated small-group rounds followed by plenary consensus. Methodological adaptations enabled structured remote participation for contributors unable to attend due to injury-related barriers.

resultsIn total, 179 survey submissions and 73 literature-derived questions were consolidated into 57 indicative uncertainties. Following evidence checking and interim prioritisation, 23 questions proceeded to the final workshop. Thirty-nine participants reached consensus on ten priorities. These emphasised preventable deaths and critical intervention windows, recognition of occult life-threatening injuries, multi-agency coordination, technology-assisted bystander care, automatic crash notification, first aid training effectiveness, emergency call-handler decision support, inequalities in injury patterns and care, treatment of entrapped casualties, and patient-centred recovery outcomes.

conclusionThis national Priority Setting Partnership provides an inclusive, stakeholder-driven foundation for research commissioning and policy development in post-collision care. The priorities highlight significant evidence gaps in the earliest phases of the care pathway and underscore the importance of addressing inequalities and aligning research with outcomes meaningful to survivors. PROTOCOL: Nutbeam, T., Leech, C., Baker, CE. et al Identifying research priorities for post-collision care in the United Kingdom: protocol for a road injury priority setting partnership. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 33, 203 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-025-01513-0 .

Indexed as

Accidents, TrafficEmergency Medical ServicesHealth PrioritiesWounds and InjuriesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomEmergency carePatient and public involvementPost-collision careRehabilitationResearch prioritiesRoad traffic injuryTrauma

Identifiers

PMID42204707
PMCPMC13397751

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.