Peer-reviewed article
Refreshing the paediatric emergency medicine research priorities across the UK and Ireland.
Sloane C, Waterfield T, Evans J, Barrett M, Lyttle MD et al. ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This peer-reviewed article describes a process to identify research priorities for paediatric emergency medicine in the UK and Ireland. The study used a structured methodology involving patients, carers, and healthcare professionals to generate and rank research questions. The resulting list of 10 research priorities is intended to guide the paediatric emergency medicine research agenda for the next decade.
Key points
- 655 questions were submitted in the first survey by 338 respondents (35% patients/carers, 65% healthcare professionals)
- 70 summary questions were created and sent to evidence review; 3 were found to have been sufficiently answered
- Survey 2 received 542 complete responses and identified 18 highest-ranking questions
- 12 patients/carers and 15 healthcare professionals reached consensus on the 10 highest priority research questions
- The methodology included an independent James Lind Alliance facilitator and adapted nominal group technique for consensus
Limitations
This document identifies research priorities but does not evaluate any intervention or measure child well-being outcomes. It cannot tell us about the effectiveness of treatments, programmes or policies for children's health or well-being.
Abstract
Background The original research priorities for paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) in the UK and Ireland were published in 2015. This list, generated through a modified Delphi process involving healthcare professionals only, has driven the research agenda for over ten years. With many now successfully addressed and a significantly altered healthcare landscape, there was a pressing need to refresh PEM research priorities with the input of patients and carers. Methods James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology was employed. The scope included unscheduled emergency care provided to children and young people irrespective of setting. An independent JLA facilitator chaired monthly steering group meetings with equal input from parents and healthcare professionals. Two online surveys were employed to generate a list of evidence uncertainties and then to prioritise research questions from key stakeholder groups (patients, carers and healthcare professionals). An online workshop subsequently used an adapted nominal group technique to reach a consensus on the top list of research priorities. Results 655 questions were submitted in Survey 1 by 338 respondents (35% patients and carers and 65% healthcare professionals). After merging questions by topic and removing out-of-scope questions, 70 summary questions proceeded to evidence reviews; three were found to have been sufficiently answered. Further merging of summary questions resulted in 46 indicative research questions for Survey 2, which received 542 complete responses (26.6% patients and carers, 73.4% healthcare professionals). The 18 highest-ranking questions were brought to the consensus workshop, in which 12 patients/carers and 15 healthcare professionals reached consensus on the 10 highest priority research questions. Conclusion This refreshed PEM prioritisation study has identified the top 10 research priorities reflecting the views of patients, carers and a range of health professionals across the UK and Ireland. These priorities will be used to drive the PEM research agenda for the next decade.