Research priorities of the Canadian chiropractic profession: a consensus study using a modified Delphi technique

Abstract

BackgroundResearch funds are limited and a healthcare profession that supports research activity should establish research priority areas. The study objective was to identify research priority areas for the Canadian chiropractic profession, and for stakeholders in the chiropractic profession to rank these in order of importance.MethodsWe conducted a modified Delphi consensus study between August 2015 and May 2017 to determine the views of Canadian chiropractic organisations (e.g. Canadian Chiropractic Association; provincial associations) and stakeholder groups (e.g. chiropractic educational institutions; researchers). Participants completed three online Delphi survey rounds. In Round 1, participants suggested research areas within four broad research themes: 1) Basic science; 2) Clinical; 3) Health services; and 4) Population health. In Round 2, researchers created sub-themes by categorising the areas suggested in Round 1, and participants judged the importance of the research sub-themes. We defined consensus as at least 70% of participants agreeing that a research area was “essential” or “very important”. In Round 3, results from Round 2 were presented to the participants to re-evaluate the importance of sub-themes. Finally, participants completed an online pairwise ranking activity to determine the rank order of the list of important research sub-themes.ResultsFifty-seven participants, of 85 people invited, completed Round 1 (response rate 67%). Fifty-six participants completed Round 2, 55 completed Round 3, and 53 completed the ranking activity. After three Delphi rounds and the pairwise ranking activity was completed, the ranked list of research sub-themes considered important were: 1) Integration of chiropractic care into multidisciplinary settings; 2) Costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care; 3) Effect of chiropractic care on reducing medical services; 4) Effects of chiropractic care; 5) Safety/side effects of chiropractic care; 6) Chiropractic care for older adults; 7) Neurophysiological mechanisms and effects of spinal manipulative therapy; 8) General mechanisms and effects of spinal manipulative therapy.ConclusionsThis project identified research priority areas for the Canadian chiropractic profession. The top three priority areas were all in the area of health services research: 1) Integration of chiropractic care into multidisciplinary settings; 2) Costs and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care; 3) Effect of chiropractic care on reducing medical services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-017-0169-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Model construction of medical endoscope service evaluation system-based on the analysis of Delphi method

“…At the end of each round of questionnaire, all questionnaires are returned to the facilitator who decides if another round is necessary or if the results are ready to support decision making. The questionnaire rounds can be repeated as many times as necessary to achieve a general sense of consensus [19,20].…”

Model Construction of Medical Endoscope Service Evaluation System-Based on the Analysis of Delphi Method

“…Traditional Delphi method consists of six phases [17,18]: (1) appoint a group facilitator who selects a group of experts based on the topic being examined; 2 round is necessary or if the results are ready to support decision making. The questionnaire rounds can be repeated as many times as necessary to achieve a general sense of consensus [19,20].…”

Revising the Academy’s Research Priorities: Methods of the Research Priorities and Strategies Development Task Force, 2017-2019

“…Clarifying priorities included the process of refining priority wording and descriptions based on feedback and organizing the priorities into an overarching framework. This is in contrast to other priority-setting processes that asked stakeholders to share ideas within prespecified domains 15 ; to allow for the emergence of novel ideas, this task force took a more open-ended, inductive approach and fit a framework to the final priorities. Finally, the task force envisioned that disseminating findings would include distribution of the final priorities through multiple venues for maximal reach.…”

“…The Research, International, and Scientific Affairs team's prioritization rubric for internal topic selection was informed by relevant literature from National Academies of Science, World Health Organization, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's. [19][20][21] From the existing Research, International, and Scientific Affairs criteria and other literature, 11,12,15,[22][23][24] the task force identified 17 possible criteria: answerability, appropriateness, capacity building, chance of success, deliverability, effectiveness, effect on burden reduction, equity, feasibility, impact on economy, impact on health, importance, potential for conceptual breakthrough, potential for success, potential for translation, potential impact, and relevancy.…”