Identifying cancer nursing research priorities using the Delphi technique

Abstract

These priorities have helped to provide both direction and focus for the development of a cancer nursing research strategy for Northern Ireland. It is recommended that future research questions should be focused around the highest ranked priorities.

Cancer Nursing Research Output in Africa 2005 to 2014

“…In addition, the unique challenges facing Africa would necessitate nursing research as research enables nurses to develop new approaches to health problems, design new and innovative programs to improve the outcomes of cancer patients and their families, and provide the evidence base for cancer nursing practice. 15,16 We selected an integrative review research method as we wished to identify, summarize, and synthesize the findings from previous independent studies 17 conducted by nurses in Africa, in an attempt to advance the development of both cancer nursing science and practice 18 on the continent. Specifically the study aimed to & quantify the publication output of cancer nursing conducted by nurses in Africa as from 2005 to 2014 and to describe the work in terms of the country of origin, authors and journals of publication and number of citations, the focus, participants, and methods used; & determine whether the studies were funded; and & assess the quality of the work.…”

A Delphi study investigating consensus among expert physiotherapists in relation to the management of low back pain

“…A review of the literature in relation to Delphi studies indicated that three parameters have been commonly employed, either individually or in combination, to indicate when a consensus has been reached -that is, percentage of agreement, mean and/or standard deviation Herdman et al, 2004;Turner and Weiner, 2002). Although a lack of standardization has caused some authors to question the levels of consensus noted (McIlfatrick and Keeney, 2003), it was decided for this particular study to use two of the most commonly reported parameters -that is, percentage agreement in excess of 60% and a mean of less than or equal to three, as indicators of consensus. Ethical approval was sought from, and granted by, the research committees of the primary care setting chosen in Scotland and the School of Health and Social Care, Glasgow Caledonian University.…”

Identifying Essential Components of a Digital Health Innovation Ecosystem for the Namibian Context: Findings from a Delphi Study

“…Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 21 was used to measure the mean and SD. Jirwe et al (2009) and Mcilfatrick and Keeney (2003) agree that on a five-point Likert scale, rankings on the 1-2 scale means that experts totally disagree, rankings on scale 3 represents a nonaligned judgement, while rankings on the 4-5 means experts agree. This same principle was applied in this study.…”