Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionally affected by conditions requiring emergency care but there are limited contextually appropriate studies performed within these settings involving the patient population and healthcare systems they aim to benefit. Over the past five years, researchers in the Western Cape of South Africa have produced approximately 20 % of all emergency care publications from Africa, yet no agreed list of research priorities exists. Establishing research priorities, via recognised consensus methods, can ensure that efforts and resources in LMICs are more appropriately targeted to the need.
Method: Using a modified Delphi study, we invited a range of public and private representatives from different professional emergency care cadres within the Western Cape to identify current evidence gaps and consensus research priorities across the four areas of the WHO Emergency Care Systems framework: scene care, prehospital care, facility-based care, and the emergency care system itself. We then purposively selected eleven experts holding key academic and management positions to form a panel and perform a nominal group technique process to discuss these identified research priorities and establish a final list of priority research questions.
Result: Forty of the sixty-six (61 %) emergency care professionals invited contributed to the Delphi phase of the study, with representation from all professional cadres. After deduplication, 154 research topics were identified in the first round. In the second round, 94 (61 %) topics were considered research priorities by at least 80 % of participants. Following the nominal group technique discussion, 26 questions were established as consensus research priorities having been ranked as a top ten priority by over 50 % of panellists.
Conclusion: We were able to successfully collate expert opinion and identify existing emergency care knowledge gaps within the Western Cape province of South Africa. Key topics identified for future work included questions on current health-seeking behaviour, dispatch, interfacility transfer, and staff burnout.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10703592 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2023.11.007 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!