Developing Military Nursing Research Priorities

Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders.

METHODS

A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution's mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.

A Call to Action for Evidence-Based Military Women’s Health Care: Developing a Women’s Health Research Agenda That Addresses Sex and Gender in Health and Illness

Women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are serving in complex occupational specialties that sustain national policy and ensure combat effectiveness of our forces. Their roles have evolved from supportive roles during early conflicts to active roles in combat support and counterinsurgency operations today. Although women have received military health care over the past three decades, sex- and gender-specific care has been limited to reproductive needs and has rarely addressed military-specific health risks and outcomes. The complexity of military jobs and increased deployments to combat operations has led to increased occupational and health risks for women. As differences have been noted between men and women’s deployment-related health outcomes, it is incumbent on the Military Health Care System (MHS) to create an evidence base that addresses sex and gender differences in the health of its service members. A working group of military women’s health advanced practice nurses (APN) and research experts proposes to address this gap in knowledge and practices through sex- and gender-specific research. A sex-and gender-based research agenda for military women’s health will be a valuable instrument to those who are dedicated to the health of this population, including members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force military nursing community. Using the knowledge that the research agenda generates, military health care providers can develop clinical practice guidelines, influence policy, and participate in program development to improve the health of servicewomen. Shaping a sex- and gender-specific military women’s health research agenda will create the foundation for future evidence-based care.

Research priorities of NSW midwives

PURPOSE

Research is vital to achieve optimum health outcomes for pregnant women, children and families. Recently, the benefit of setting research priorities to effectively utilize limited resources has been identified. Currently there is a lack of published Australian research data relevant to the practice of midwifery. Consultation with current practitioners is important to fulfill the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) key priority for a healthy start to life, ensure limited resources are expended appropriately and promote evidence-based midwifery practice. The aim of this study was to ascertain the perceived research priorities and the research experience of midwives in NSW, Australia.

PROCEDURES

Postal questionnaire sent to the 1000 subscribers of Australian Midwifery, of whom 90% (900) are midwives, in March 2005 with key open-ended questions to ascertain midwifery research priorities and research experience of participants.

FINDINGS

Respondents were all midwives with 95% indicating they were currently practising as a midwife. They identified six priority areas: professional practice; clinical issues; education and support; breastfeeding; psychosocial factors; rural/indigenous issues.

PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS

Priorities for research were identified and the need for a link between research and professional midwifery practice was highlighted. Midwives were positive about the possibility of becoming more actively involved in research and/or advocates for evidence based practice. The opportunity exists to take the broad priority areas from this study and develop research questions of relevance for the midwifery profession.