The Experts below are selected from a list of 146850 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Deborah Wilkerson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
optimal outcome measures Research Priorities and international cooperation
Ear and Hearing, 2000Co-Authors: Martyn L Hyde, Stuart Gatehouse, William Noble, Harvey Dillon, Ruth A Bentler, Dafydd Stephens, Stig Arlinger, Lucille B Beck, Deborah Wilkerson, Sophia E KramerAbstract:The participants in the Eriksholm Workshop on “M easuring Outcomes in Audiological Rehabilitation Using Hearing Aids” debated three issues that are reported in this article. First, it was agreed that the characteristics of an optimal outcome measure vary as a function of the purpose of the measurement. Potential characteristics of outcome self-report tools for four common goals of outcome measurement are briefly presented to illustrate this point. Second, 10 important Research Priorities in outcome measurement were identified and ranked. They are presented with brief discussion of the top five. Third, the concept of generating a brief universally applicable outcome measure was endorsed. This brief data set is intended to supplement existing outcome measures and to promote data combination and comparison across different social, cultural, and health-care delivery systems. A set of seven core items is proposed for further study.
-
optimal outcome measures Research Priorities and international cooperation
Ear and Hearing, 2000Co-Authors: Robyn M Cox, Martyn L Hyde, Stuart Gatehouse, William Noble, Harvey Dillon, Ruth A Bentler, Dafydd Stephens, Stig Arlinger, Lucille B Beck, Deborah WilkersonAbstract:The participants in the Eriksholm Workshop on "Measuring Outcomes in Audiological Rehabilitation Using Hearing Aids" debated three issues that are reported in this article. First, it was agreed that the characteristics of an optimal outcome measure vary as a function of the purpose of the measurement. Potential characteristics of outcome self-report tools for four common goals of outcome measurement are briefly presented to illustrate this point. Second, 10 important Research Priorities in outcome measurement were identified and ranked. They are presented with brief discussion of the top five. Third, the concept of generating a brief universally applicable outcome measure was endorsed. This brief data set is intended to supplement existing outcome measures and to promote data combination and comparison across different social, cultural, and health-care delivery systems. A set of seven core items is proposed for further study.
Braden Oneill - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
identifying top 10 primary care Research Priorities from international stakeholders using a modified delphi method
PLOS ONE, 2018Co-Authors: Braden Oneill, Vanessa Aversa, Katherine Rouleau, Kim Lazare, Frank Sullivan, Nav PersaudAbstract:Background: High quality primary care is fundamental to achieving health for all. Research priority setting is a key facilitator of improving how Research activity responds to concrete needs. There has never before been an attempt to identify international primary care Research Priorities, in order to guide resource allocation and to enhance global primary care. This study aimed to identify a list of top 10 primary care Research Priorities, as identified by members of the public, health professionals working in primary care, Researchers, and policymakers. Methods: We adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process, to conduct multiple rounds of stakeholder recruitment and prioritization. The study included an online survey conducted in three languages, followed by an in-person priority setting exercise involving primary care stakeholders from 13 countries. Findings: Participants identified a list of top 10 international primary care Research Priorities. These were focused on diverse topics such as enhancing use of information and communication technology, and improving integration of indigenous communities’ knowledge in the design of primary care services. The main limitations of the study related to challenges in engaging an adequate diversity and number of appropriate stakeholders, particularly members of the public, in aggregating the diverse set of responses into coherent categories representative of the participants’ perspectives and in adequately representing the diversity of submitted responses while ensuring Research Priorities on the final list are sufficiently actionable to guide resource allocation. Conclusions: The top 10 identified Research Priorities have the potential to guide Research resource allocation, supporting funding agencies and initiatives to promote global primary care Research and practice.
Martyn L Hyde - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
optimal outcome measures Research Priorities and international cooperation
Ear and Hearing, 2000Co-Authors: Martyn L Hyde, Stuart Gatehouse, William Noble, Harvey Dillon, Ruth A Bentler, Dafydd Stephens, Stig Arlinger, Lucille B Beck, Deborah Wilkerson, Sophia E KramerAbstract:The participants in the Eriksholm Workshop on “M easuring Outcomes in Audiological Rehabilitation Using Hearing Aids” debated three issues that are reported in this article. First, it was agreed that the characteristics of an optimal outcome measure vary as a function of the purpose of the measurement. Potential characteristics of outcome self-report tools for four common goals of outcome measurement are briefly presented to illustrate this point. Second, 10 important Research Priorities in outcome measurement were identified and ranked. They are presented with brief discussion of the top five. Third, the concept of generating a brief universally applicable outcome measure was endorsed. This brief data set is intended to supplement existing outcome measures and to promote data combination and comparison across different social, cultural, and health-care delivery systems. A set of seven core items is proposed for further study.
-
optimal outcome measures Research Priorities and international cooperation
Ear and Hearing, 2000Co-Authors: Robyn M Cox, Martyn L Hyde, Stuart Gatehouse, William Noble, Harvey Dillon, Ruth A Bentler, Dafydd Stephens, Stig Arlinger, Lucille B Beck, Deborah WilkersonAbstract:The participants in the Eriksholm Workshop on "Measuring Outcomes in Audiological Rehabilitation Using Hearing Aids" debated three issues that are reported in this article. First, it was agreed that the characteristics of an optimal outcome measure vary as a function of the purpose of the measurement. Potential characteristics of outcome self-report tools for four common goals of outcome measurement are briefly presented to illustrate this point. Second, 10 important Research Priorities in outcome measurement were identified and ranked. They are presented with brief discussion of the top five. Third, the concept of generating a brief universally applicable outcome measure was endorsed. This brief data set is intended to supplement existing outcome measures and to promote data combination and comparison across different social, cultural, and health-care delivery systems. A set of seven core items is proposed for further study.
Igor Rudan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
agreeing on global Research Priorities for medication safety an international prioritisation exercise
Journal of Global Health, 2019Co-Authors: Aziz Sheikh, Igor Rudan, Kathrin Cresswell, Neelam Dhingrakumar, Mei Lee Tan, Minna L Hakkinen, Liam DonaldsonAbstract:Objectives Medication errors continue to contribute substantially to global morbidity and mortality. In the context of the recent launch of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm, we sought to establish agreement on Research Priorities for medication safety. Methods We undertook a consensus prioritisation exercise using an approach developed by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. Based on a combination of productivity and citations, we identified leading Researchers in patient and medication safety and invited them to participate. We also extended the invitation to a further pool of experts from the WHO Global Patient Safety Network. All experts independently generated Research ideas, which they then independently scored based on the criteria of: answerability, effectiveness, innovativeness, implementation, burden reduction and equity. An overall Research Priority Score and Average Expert Agreement were calculated for each Research question. Findings 131 experts submitted 333 Research ideas, and 42 experts then scored the proposed Research questions. The top prioritised Research areas were: (1) deploying and scaling technology to enhance medication safety; (2) developing guidelines and standard operating procedures for high-risk patients, medications and contexts; (3) score-based approaches to predicting high-risk patients and situations; (4) interventions to increase patient medication literacy; (5) focused training courses for health professionals; and (6) universally applicable pictograms to avoid medication-related harm. Whilst there was a focus on promoting patient education and involvement across resource settings, Priorities identified in high-resource settings centred on the optimisation of existing systems through technology. In low- and middle-resource settings, Priorities focused on identifying systemic issues contributing to high-risk situations. Conclusions WHO now plans to work with global, regional and national Research funding agencies to catalyse the investment needed to enable teams to pursue these Research Priorities in medication safety across high-, middle- and low-resource country settings.
-
setting health Research Priorities using the chnri method vii a review of the first 50 applications of the chnri method
Journal of Global Health, 2017Co-Authors: Igor Rudan, Kit Yee Chan, Sachiyo Yoshida, Joy E Lawn, Kerri Wazny, Mark Tomlinson, Aziz Sheikh, Devi Sridhar, Harish Nair, Zulfiqar A BhuttaAbstract:CITATION: Rudan, I., et al. 2017. Setting health Research Priorities using the CHNRI method : VII. A review of the first 50 applications of the CHNRI method. Journal of Global Health, 7(1):011004, doi:10.7189/jogh.07.011004.
-
Research Priorities to reduce the global burden of dementia by 2025
Lancet Neurology, 2016Co-Authors: Hiral Shah, Kit Yee Chan, Igor Rudan, Emiliano Albanese, Cynthia Duggan, Kenneth M Langa, Maria C Carrillo, Yves Joanette, Martin PrinceAbstract:At the First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia in March, 2015, 160 delegates, including representatives from 80 WHO Member States and four UN agencies, agreed on a call for action to reduce the global burden of dementia by fostering a collective effort to advance Research. To drive this effort, we completed a globally representative Research prioritisation exercise using an adapted version of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method. We elicited 863 Research questions from 201 participants and consolidated these questions into 59 thematic Research avenues, which were scored anonymously by 162 Researchers and stakeholders from 39 countries according to five criteria. Six of the top ten Research Priorities were focused on prevention, identification, and reduction of dementia risk, and on delivery and quality of care for people with dementia and their carers. Other Priorities related to diagnosis, biomarkers, treatment development, basic Research into disease mechanisms, and public awareness and understanding of dementia. Research Priorities identified by this systematic international process should be mapped onto the global dementia Research landscape to identify crucial gaps and inform and motivate policy makers, funders, and Researchers to support and conduct Research to reduce the global burden of dementia. Efforts are needed by all stakeholders, including WHO, WHO Member States, and civil society, to continuously monitor Research investments and progress, through international platforms such as a Global Dementia Observatory. With established Research Priorities, an opportunity now exists to translate the call for action into a global dementia action plan to reduce the global burden of dementia.
-
setting Research Priorities to improve global newborn health and prevent stillbirths by 2025
Journal of Global Health, 2016Co-Authors: Sachiyo Yoshida, Jose Martines, Joy E Lawn, Stephen Wall, Joao Paulo Souza, Igor Rudan, Simon Cousens, Peter Aaby, Ishag AdamAbstract:In 2013, an estimated 2.8 million newborns died and 2.7 million were stillborn. A much greater number suffer from long term impairment associated with preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction, congenital anomalies, and perinatal or infectious causes. With the approaching deadline for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015, there was a need to set the new Research Priorities on newborns and stillbirth with a focus not only on survival but also on health, growth and development. We therefore carried out a systematic exercise to set newborn health Research Priorities for 2013-2025.We used adapted Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methods for this prioritization exercise. We identified and approached the 200 most productive Researchers and 400 program experts, and 132 of them submitted Research questions online. These were collated into a set of 205 Research questions, sent for scoring to the 600 identified experts, and were assessed and scored by 91 experts.Nine out of top ten identified Priorities were in the domain of Research on improving delivery of known interventions, with simplified neonatal resuscitation program and clinical algorithms and improved skills of community health workers leading the list. The top 10 Priorities in the domain of development were led by ideas on improved Kangaroo Mother Care at community level, how to improve the accuracy of diagnosis by community health workers, and perinatal audits. The 10 leading Priorities for discovery Research focused on stable surfactant with novel modes of administration for preterm babies, ability to diagnose fetal distress and novel tocolytic agents to delay or stop preterm labour.These findings will assist both donors and Researchers in supporting and conducting Research to close the knowledge gaps for reducing neonatal mortality, morbidity and long term impairment. WHO, SNL and other partners will work to generate interest among key national stakeholders, governments, NGOs, and Research institutes in these Priorities, while encouraging Research funders to support them. We will track Research funding, relevant requests for proposals and trial registers to monitor if the Priorities identified by this exercise are being addressed.
-
setting Research Priorities to improve global newborn health and prevent stillbirths by 2025
Journal of Global Health, 2016Co-Authors: Sachiyo Yoshida, Jose Martines, Joy E Lawn, Stephen Wall, Joao Paulo Souza, Igor Rudan, Simon Cousens, Peter Aaby, Ishag AdamAbstract:BACKGROUND: In 2013, an estimated 2.8 million newborns died and 2.7 million were stillborn. A much greater number suffer from long term impairment associated with preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction, congenital anomalies, and perinatal or infectious causes. With the approaching deadline for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015, there was a need to set the new Research Priorities on newborns and stillbirth with a focus not only on survival but also on health, growth and development. We therefore carried out a systematic exercise to set newborn health Research Priorities for 2013-2025. METHODS: We used adapted Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methods for this prioritization exercise. We identified and approached the 200 most productive Researchers and 400 program experts, and 132 of them submitted Research questions online. These were collated into a set of 205 Research questions, sent for scoring to the 600 identified experts, and were assessed and scored by 91 experts. RESULTS: Nine out of top ten identified Priorities were in the domain of Research on improving delivery of known interventions, with simplified neonatal resuscitation program and clinical algorithms and improved skills of community health workers leading the list. The top 10 Priorities in the domain of development were led by ideas on improved Kangaroo Mother Care at community level, how to improve the accuracy of diagnosis by community health workers, and perinatal audits. The 10 leading Priorities for discovery Research focused on stable surfactant with novel modes of administration for preterm babies, ability to diagnose fetal distress and novel tocolytic agents to delay or stop preterm labour. CONCLUSION: These findings will assist both donors and Researchers in supporting and conducting Research to close the knowledge gaps for reducing neonatal mortality, morbidity and long term impairment. WHO, SNL and other partners will work to generate interest among key national stakeholders, governments, NGOs, and Research institutes in these Priorities, while encouraging Research funders to support them. We will track Research funding, relevant requests for proposals and trial registers to monitor if the Priorities identified by this exercise are being addressed.
Sophia E Kramer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
optimal outcome measures Research Priorities and international cooperation
Ear and Hearing, 2000Co-Authors: Martyn L Hyde, Stuart Gatehouse, William Noble, Harvey Dillon, Ruth A Bentler, Dafydd Stephens, Stig Arlinger, Lucille B Beck, Deborah Wilkerson, Sophia E KramerAbstract:The participants in the Eriksholm Workshop on “M easuring Outcomes in Audiological Rehabilitation Using Hearing Aids” debated three issues that are reported in this article. First, it was agreed that the characteristics of an optimal outcome measure vary as a function of the purpose of the measurement. Potential characteristics of outcome self-report tools for four common goals of outcome measurement are briefly presented to illustrate this point. Second, 10 important Research Priorities in outcome measurement were identified and ranked. They are presented with brief discussion of the top five. Third, the concept of generating a brief universally applicable outcome measure was endorsed. This brief data set is intended to supplement existing outcome measures and to promote data combination and comparison across different social, cultural, and health-care delivery systems. A set of seven core items is proposed for further study.
